Re: [solved] testing MATE upgrade broke panels, downgrading fixed it
songbird wrote: > > as an FYI, last night this wasn't a good idea: > > The following packages will be upgraded: >gir1.2-matepanelapplet-4.0 (1.27.1-2+b2 => 1.27.1-3) >libmate-panel-applet-4-1 (1.27.1-2+b2 => 1.27.1-3) >libmate-panel-applet-dev (1.27.1-2+b2 => 1.27.1-3) >mate-panel (1.27.1-2+b2 => 1.27.1-3) >mate-panel-common (1.27.1-2 => 1.27.1-3) > > > this morning downgraded to previous version and all is > back to working. > > held this update for now... an 1.27.1-4 update now works as it should. songbird
Re: last(1) missing after upgrade from 12.5 to sid (util-linux 2.38.1 to 2.40.1-4)
e...@gmx.us wrote: > On 6/4/24 10:59, songbird wrote: >> t...@tommiller.us wrote: >> >>> Hello! >>> >>> last(1) seems to have disappeared following an upgrade from 12.5 to sid. >> ... >> >>i've been using the "more" command provided by the util-linux >> package. > > How do you use "more" to do what "last" does? correct, i messed up, i was thinking of less. oops! sorry... :) songbird
Re: last(1) missing after upgrade from 12.5 to sid (util-linux 2.38.1 to 2.40.1-4)
Ash Joubert wrote: > On 2024-06-05 02:59, songbird wrote: >> t...@tommiller.us wrote: >>> last(1) seems to have disappeared following an upgrade from 12.5 to sid. >>i've been using the "more" command provided by the util-linux >> package. > > You might be thinking of less(1), a program similar to more(1). The > original post refers to last(1), which lists logins. yes, i was mistaken. songbird
Re: last(1) missing after upgrade from 12.5 to sid (util-linux 2.38.1 to 2.40.1-4)
On 2024-06-05 02:59, songbird wrote: t...@tommiller.us wrote: last(1) seems to have disappeared following an upgrade from 12.5 to sid. i've been using the "more" command provided by the util-linux package. You might be thinking of less(1), a program similar to more(1). The original post refers to last(1), which lists logins. Cheers, -- Ash Joubert (they/them) Director / Game Developer Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/> New Zealand
Re: last(1) missing after upgrade from 12.5 to sid (util-linux 2.38.1 to 2.40.1-4)
On 6/4/24 10:59, songbird wrote: t...@tommiller.us wrote: Hello! last(1) seems to have disappeared following an upgrade from 12.5 to sid. ... i've been using the "more" command provided by the util-linux package. How do you use "more" to do what "last" does? -- Q: What did one photon say to the other photon? A: I'm sick and tired of your interference. -- thebigmike1983 on Fark
Re: last(1) missing after upgrade from 12.5 to sid (util-linux 2.38.1 to 2.40.1-4)
t...@tommiller.us wrote: > Hello! > > last(1) seems to have disappeared following an upgrade from 12.5 to sid. ... i've been using the "more" command provided by the util-linux package. songbird
Re: last(1) missing after upgrade from 12.5 to sid (util-linux 2.38.1 to 2.40.1-4)
June 3, 2024 at 9:09 PM, t...@tommiller.us wrote: > > Hello! > > last(1) seems to have disappeared following an upgrade from 12.5 to sid. > > More info is shown below. What is my mistake? Or, could it be a bug? > > Please send me copies of replies since I am not subscribed to this list. > > Thanks for your help! > > Best! > > Tom > > <8> > > # Prior to upgrade, last(1) is present in 12.5 > > root@lol ~ # cat /etc/debian_version > > 12.5 > > root@lol ~ # which last > > /usr/bin/last > > root@lol ~ # last --version > > last from util-linux 2.38.1 > > root@lol ~ # > > # Update, upgrade, and reboot 12.5 to prepare for sid > > root@lol ~ # apt-get update && apt-get full-upgrade -y > > [reboot] > > root@lol ~ # last --version > > last from util-linux 2.38.1 > > root@lol ~ # > > # Edit sources.list > > root@lol ~ # cat /etc/apt/sources.list > > deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ unstable main contrib non-free > non-free-firmware > > deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian/ unstable main contrib non-free > non-free-firmware > > root@lol ~ # > > # Snips from command line during upgrade from 12.5 to sid > > root@lol ~ # apt-get update && apt-get full-upgrade -y > > Get:215 http://deb.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 util-linux amd64 > 2.40.1-4 [1,210 kB] > > Get:216 http://deb.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 util-linux-extra > amd64 2.40.1-4 [262 kB] > > Get:351 http://deb.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 util-linux-locales > all 2.40.1-4 [2,897 kB] > > Preparing to unpack .../util-linux_2.40.1-4_amd64.deb ... > > Unpacking util-linux (2.40.1-4) over (2.38.1-5+deb12u1) ... > > Setting up util-linux (2.40.1-4) ... > > fstrim.service is a disabled or a static unit not running, not starting it. > > (Reading database ... 34837 files and directories currently installed.) > > Preparing to unpack .../util-linux-extra_2.40.1-4_amd64.deb ... > > Adding 'diversion of /sbin/ctrlaltdel to /sbin/ctrlaltdel.usr-is-merged by > util-linux-extra' > > Adding 'diversion of /sbin/fsck.cramfs to /sbin/fsck.cramfs.usr-is-merged by > util-linux-extra' > > Adding 'diversion of /sbin/fsck.minix to /sbin/fsck.minix.usr-is-merged by > util-linux-extra' > > Adding 'diversion of /sbin/mkfs.bfs to /sbin/mkfs.bfs.usr-is-merged by > util-linux-extra' > > Adding 'diversion of /sbin/mkfs.cramfs to /sbin/mkfs.cramfs.usr-is-merged by > util-linux-extra' > > Adding 'diversion of /sbin/mkfs.minix to /sbin/mkfs.minix.usr-is-merged by > util-linux-extra' > > Unpacking util-linux-extra (2.40.1-4) over (2.38.1-5+deb12u1) ... > > Setting up util-linux-extra (2.40.1-4) ... > > (Reading database ... 34879 files and directories currently installed.) > > # last(1) seems gone even before reboot; still gone following reboot > > root@lol ~ # last --version > > -bash: /usr/bin/last: No such file or directory > > root@lol ~ # > > root@lol ~ # systemctl reboot > > root@lol ~ # cat /etc/debian_version > > trixie/sid > > root@lol ~ # which which > > /usr/bin/which > > root@lol ~ # which last > > root@lol ~ # man last > > No manual entry for last > > root@lol ~ # > > >8< > Thanks to the kind person who sent me: >8< root@lol ~ # zcat /usr/share/doc/util-linux/NEWS.Debian.gz util-linux (2.40.1-2) unstable; urgency=medium * last(1) has been split off to the wtmpdb package. If you find last(1) useful, please install wtmpdb and accept the default PAM configuration changes from libpam-wtmpdb. * lastb(1) is removed. Please see syslog/journal for failed login attempts. -- Chris Hofstaedtler Wed, 29 May 2024 23:52:19 +0200 root@lol ~ # >8<
Re: last(1) missing after upgrade from 12.5 to sid (util-linux 2.38.1 to 2.40.1-4)
On 2024-06-04 16:09, t...@tommiller.us wrote: last(1) seems to have disappeared following an upgrade from 12.5 to sid. I remember seeing in the NEWS for util-linux that last(1) was moved to the wtmpdb package: $ zcat /usr/share/doc/util-linux/NEWS.Debian.gz util-linux (2.40.1-2) unstable; urgency=medium * last(1) has been split off to the wtmpdb package. If you find last(1) useful, please install wtmpdb and accept the default PAM configuration changes from libpam-wtmpdb. * lastb(1) is removed. Please see syslog/journal for failed login attempts. -- Chris Hofstaedtler Wed, 29 May 2024 23:52:19 +0200 Kind regards, -- Ash Joubert (they/them) Director / Game Developer Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/> New Zealand
last(1) missing after upgrade from 12.5 to sid (util-linux 2.38.1 to 2.40.1-4)
Hello! last(1) seems to have disappeared following an upgrade from 12.5 to sid. More info is shown below. What is my mistake? Or, could it be a bug? Please send me copies of replies since I am not subscribed to this list. Thanks for your help! Best! Tom <8> # Prior to upgrade, last(1) is present in 12.5 root@lol ~ # cat /etc/debian_version 12.5 root@lol ~ # which last /usr/bin/last root@lol ~ # last --version last from util-linux 2.38.1 root@lol ~ # # Update, upgrade, and reboot 12.5 to prepare for sid root@lol ~ # apt-get update && apt-get full-upgrade -y [reboot] root@lol ~ # last --version last from util-linux 2.38.1 root@lol ~ # # Edit sources.list root@lol ~ # cat /etc/apt/sources.list deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ unstable main contrib non-free non-free-firmware deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian/ unstable main contrib non-free non-free-firmware root@lol ~ # # Snips from command line during upgrade from 12.5 to sid root@lol ~ # apt-get update && apt-get full-upgrade -y Get:215 http://deb.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 util-linux amd64 2.40.1-4 [1,210 kB] Get:216 http://deb.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 util-linux-extra amd64 2.40.1-4 [262 kB] Get:351 http://deb.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 util-linux-locales all 2.40.1-4 [2,897 kB] Preparing to unpack .../util-linux_2.40.1-4_amd64.deb ... Unpacking util-linux (2.40.1-4) over (2.38.1-5+deb12u1) ... Setting up util-linux (2.40.1-4) ... fstrim.service is a disabled or a static unit not running, not starting it. (Reading database ... 34837 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to unpack .../util-linux-extra_2.40.1-4_amd64.deb ... Adding 'diversion of /sbin/ctrlaltdel to /sbin/ctrlaltdel.usr-is-merged by util-linux-extra' Adding 'diversion of /sbin/fsck.cramfs to /sbin/fsck.cramfs.usr-is-merged by util-linux-extra' Adding 'diversion of /sbin/fsck.minix to /sbin/fsck.minix.usr-is-merged by util-linux-extra' Adding 'diversion of /sbin/mkfs.bfs to /sbin/mkfs.bfs.usr-is-merged by util-linux-extra' Adding 'diversion of /sbin/mkfs.cramfs to /sbin/mkfs.cramfs.usr-is-merged by util-linux-extra' Adding 'diversion of /sbin/mkfs.minix to /sbin/mkfs.minix.usr-is-merged by util-linux-extra' Unpacking util-linux-extra (2.40.1-4) over (2.38.1-5+deb12u1) ... Setting up util-linux-extra (2.40.1-4) ... (Reading database ... 34879 files and directories currently installed.) # last(1) seems gone even before reboot; still gone following reboot root@lol ~ # last --version -bash: /usr/bin/last: No such file or directory root@lol ~ # root@lol ~ # systemctl reboot root@lol ~ # cat /etc/debian_version trixie/sid root@lol ~ # which which /usr/bin/which root@lol ~ # which last root@lol ~ # man last No manual entry for last root@lol ~ # >8<
Re: After upgrade, what do you do about "removed" and "obsolete" packages ?
Thomas Schmitt wrote: ... > Thanks for this description of a real world procedure. > Now i know at least that i am not the only one who cares about the > post-upgrade steps in the manual. I already began to think that everybody > lets the surplus packages rot in the dark. i have been running the same general routine for years. every morning i boot up, run the updates for apt (but i use apt-get out of habit) and then do the updates that make sense. since i am running testing i may delay some updates for a period of time until issues look to be resolved. if there are packages that are no longer needed i will usually leave them in place until after i've made sure i don't need them any more (here or there i have had to downgrade to fix an issue so i don't want to have to recreate a configuration file) before i purge them from my system, but it may only be a few days where i don't have the purged. i also used to run orphaner, but i've not used that in quite a long time and it doesn't even appear in the archive any more. after upgrading i reboot. i want to know something is broken when i have time to fix it instead of finding out when i don't have time. i do keep a bootable stable partition though for emergencies and comparison. once in a while i remove any unneeded downloaded packages from my apt cache so i'm not wasting too much space on my system, but that's once a month or so when things seem to be quiet enough that i'm not at risk of removing a package i might need to downgrade. > Have a nice day :) :) > Thomas songbird
Re: After upgrade, what do you do about "removed" and "obsolete" packages ?
Hi, Florent Rougon wrote: > AFAIK, these are not wildcards; each star appended to a package name > indicates that the package is going to be purged At least it is a good way to catch the attention of the apt operator. :)) > tl;dr: aptitude praise Thanks for this description of a real world procedure. Now i know at least that i am not the only one who cares about the post-upgrade steps in the manual. I already began to think that everybody lets the surplus packages rot in the dark. Have a nice day :) Thomas
Re: After upgrade, what do you do about "removed" and "obsolete" packages ?
Le 01/06/2024, Florent Rougon a écrit: > FWIW, removal of “obsolete or local” packages is easily done > interactively in aptitude: you go the the corresponding section of the > main screen, hit Enter, etc. The [ key recursively unfolds a section > (use ] to fold it back). You ask to purge a package by typing _ > (removing with -, as in the venerable dselect). Forgot to say: one can perform the operation (remove with -, purge with _) on a whole section at once by pressing the key on the section title, where by “section” I mean: a foldable group of packages (e.g.: admin, kernel, libsdevel, libs, etc., plus actual Debian sections: main, contrib, nonfree, and presumably also the new non-free-firmware). So, for instance, a whole bunch of obsolete library pakages can be marked all at once for purge with a single _ keypress (this doesn't exempt one from _reading_ the list of packages marked with this keypress—make sure you didn't overlook something!). Regards -- Florent
Re: After upgrade, what do you do about "removed" and "obsolete" packages ?
Le 31/05/2024, "Thomas Schmitt" a écrit: > Then it offered me a list with slightly frightening wildcards: > > The following packages will be REMOVED: > fuse* libreoffice-avmedia-backend-gstreamer* linux-image-4.19.0-17-amd64* > linux-image-4.19.0-20-amd64* linux-image-4.19.0-9-amd64* python* > python-twisted-core* wicd-daemon* wicd-gtk* AFAIK, these are not wildcards; each star appended to a package name indicates that the package is going to be purged (no config files left afterwards), as opposed to simply removed (leaving configuration files in place). > I will probably run "apt autoremove" after verifying that the few > worthy local packages are not in the list proposed for autoremoval. tl;dr: aptitude praise ~~ FWIW, removal of “obsolete or local” packages is easily done interactively in aptitude: you go the the corresponding section of the main screen, hit Enter, etc. The [ key recursively unfolds a section (use ] to fold it back). You ask to purge a package by typing _ (removing with -, as in the venerable dselect). For actually obsolete packages, doing so will occasionally trigger a “dependency problem” because another package that depends on it hasn't been marked as “to be removed or purged” yet. But normally, that other package is also obsolete, so it *will* be marked shortly after when you get to it. So basically, once you've gone through all the obsolete packages marking each one as “to be purged”, having only left intact the local ones you do want to keep, there should be no dependency problem to resolve. ⇒ Hit g (for “go”), check the preview, hit g again if it looks fine, otherwise q. Note that the preview (of what is going to be done) is shown in a new tab (yes, these are tabs, you can switch between them with F6), and that tab gets closed if you cancel the operation with q. Also, you can act directly in the Preview tab to unmark an operation, etc. And you can undo with Ctrl-u, including outside the Preview tab. Generally and especially for this kind of use (removing obsolete packages that are still installed), I find that the following lines are a must-have in /etc/apt/apt.conf: // Similar to dselect Aptitude::UI::Advance-On-Action "true"; (I also like “Aptitude::Auto-Upgrade "true";” but it is irrelevant here.) apt and aptitude have different algorithms for handling upgrades, so: for stable-to-next-stable upgrades, I do stick to what the Release Notes recommend. In most other situations where there isn't a huge number of packages to upgrade, I find that aptitude does a great job: - interactive control over what is going to be done; - visualization of packages marked as auto-installed vs. those not marked as such (and you can flip this bit using m or M); - interactive, regexp-based search (with powerful features if you look up the syntax in the manual); - interactive package list limited by a user-defined filter (this is Limit Display in the Search menu); - interactive inspection of the (deps a package + other control fields) with Enter; of its reverse deps with the r key (and you can quicky recurse in order to find why you need to have this pkg installed); - works in a terminal; - etc. There is the occasional crash, fortunately I've never seen one happen while dpkg was installing, removing, etc., so the crashes I've seen were all rather harmless (restart aptitude and proceed again). The worst I had was on sid during the time_t transition: at some point, aptitude couldn't start without crashing; however, after upgrading a few packages with 'apt', it all went back into order. :-) Regards -- Florent
Re: After upgrade, what do you do about "removed" and "obsolete" packages ?
Hi,
just for the archive:
I think i found the source code which emits the "[...]" strings of
apt-list:
https://sources.debian.org/src/apt/2.9.4/apt-private/private-output.cc/#L292
The possible status strings are:
[installed,upgradable to: ...]
[installed,local]
[installed,auto-removable]
[installed,automatic]
[installed]
[upgradable from: ...]"
[residual-config]
More seem not to exist.
Their meaning has to be guessed from the names of methods, variables, and
constants in the code. (I believe "pkgCache::Flag::Auto" is a constant and
not an overloaded monster car. With C++ one never knows what's behind a
name.)
if (P->CurrentVer != 0)
{
if (P.CurrentVer() == V)
{
if (state.Upgradable() && state.CandidateVer != NULL)
strprintf(StatusStr, _("[installed,upgradable to: %s]"),
else if (V.Downloadable() == false)
StatusStr = _("[installed,local]");
else if(V.Automatic() == true && state.Garbage == true)
StatusStr = _("[installed,auto-removable]");
else if ((state.Flags & pkgCache::Flag::Auto) == pkgCache::Flag::Auto)
StatusStr = _("[installed,automatic]");
else
StatusStr = _("[installed]");
}
else if (state.CandidateVer == V && state.Upgradable())
strprintf(StatusStr, _("[upgradable from: %s]"),
InstalledVerStr.c_str());
}
else if (V.ParentPkg()->CurrentState == pkgCache::State::ConfigFiles)
StatusStr = _("[residual-config]");
-
About my post-upgrade activities:
I ran the command that is proposed in
https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#purge-removed-packages
apt purge '~c'
It flooded me with package names under the headline
The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer
required:
...
Use 'apt autoremove' to remove them.
Then it offered me a list with slightly frightening wildcards:
The following packages will be REMOVED:
fuse* libreoffice-avmedia-backend-gstreamer* linux-image-4.19.0-17-amd64*
linux-image-4.19.0-20-amd64* linux-image-4.19.0-9-amd64* python*
python-twisted-core* wicd-daemon* wicd-gtk*
After my confirmation it purged the 9 configurations which were reported
by "apt list '~c'"
Purging configuration files for fuse (2.9.9-5) ...
...
Purging configuration files for python (2.7.16-1) ...
and as last line said
Processing triggers for dbus (1.14.10-1~deb12u1) ...
Somewhat mistrusting about the removal of "python" i asked apt-file from
where my current /usr/bin/python stems. Answer: python-is-python3 .
(As side result i now wonder how the result of /usr/bin/python3-pasteurize
might taste and how long it stays fresh.)
I will probably run "apt autoremove" after verifying that the few
worthy local packages are not in the list proposed for autoremoval.
Have a nice day :)
Thomas
Re: After upgrade, what do you do about "removed" and "obsolete" packages ?
On 2024-05-30, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > > Nevertheless it would be nice to find documentation about this kind of > info in the output of "apt list". I found this from an old post about Synaptic (the apt front-end), in the latter's "help page": Obsolete or locally installed - Display only packages that are not (for longer) (sic) included in one of the specified repositories. I guess the terminology is intended to cover all conceivable cases of why a package isn't found in the repositories, in the event the user grew confused by one or the other term that wasn't relevant to her situation, although for APT the two cases are indistinguishable. > > Have a nice day :) > > Thomas > > --
Re: After upgrade, what do you do about "removed" and "obsolete" packages ?
Hi, i wrote: > > What kind of programming language can have inspired the developers > > to define such a syntax ? Max Nikulin: > https://blog.jak-linux.org/2019/08/15/apt-patterns/ This points to aptitude. The package description of aptitude says "mutt-like syntax for matching packages". Indeed https://www.sendmail.org/~ca/email/mutt/manual-4.html has in its second half some lines which resemble apt-patterns. > As to obsolete vs. local packages, my guess is that apt may label some > version as obsolete if another version of the same package is still > available from some repository. Otherwise it is local. To me it seems that apt-patterns simply calls "obsolete" what apt-list then marks in its output as "[... local]". Obviously these terms refer to different reasons why a package is not found in the official repos. But these reasons seem to be indistinguishable. So in the end both terms depict the same status. Have a nice day :) Thomas
Re: After upgrade, what do you do about "removed" and "obsolete" packages ?
On Wed 29 May 2024 at 18:20:25 (+0200), Thomas Schmitt wrote: > i wonder why none of the electricians on this list has an anecdote to > share about dealing with "obsolete" packages after upgrade. > No triumphs, defeats, or global catastrophes ? Nowadays I install new releases from scratch, helped by the fact that for years I've always had two systems on each machine, the current and the previous. (/home is shared.) That tends to limit cruft as well. > I wrote: > > > https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.h > tml#purge-removed-packages > > > What does "[residual-config]" mean ? It is odd that the terminology used in the output differs from that used to provoke it, as in: $ apt list '?config-files' Listing... Done mlocate/oldstable,now 0.26-5 amd64 [residual-config] $ Both man apt-patterns and aptitude's Search Term Reference ought to include the bracketed items if there's no intention to unify terms. Perhaps it's related to the tendency to underdocument the output from programs. > The predicate "obsolete" is not the same as "automatically installed". > I understand that obsolete means having no successor package in the > upgraded Debian release. "Obsolete" is an unfortunately loaded word. I think aptitude expresses it a bit more clearly: "This term matches any installed package which is not available in any version from any archive. These packages appear as “Obsolete or Locally Installed” in the visual interface." $ apt list '?installed ?obsolete' Listing... Done xtoolwait/now 1.3-6.2 amd64 [installed,local] yt-dlp/now 2024.05.26-1 all [installed,local] $ The first is from squeeze, the second from trixie (hardly "obsolete"), both installed with apt-get fullpath (previously I'd have used dpkg -i). > Is there a way to do a dry run which only tells what would happen if i > were more courageous ? Both apt* and dpkg have --no-act --dry-run --simulate to prevent acting. (apt* has additional synonyms -s --just-print --recon.) With dpkg, it's safest to place the option first, as it only protects what follows it in the command line. Typically you can also not be root to help protect yourself, as in: $ apt-get -s remove libc6 NOTE: This is only a simulation! apt-get needs root privileges for real execution. Keep also in mind that locking is deactivated, so don't depend on the relevance to the real current situation! Reading package lists... Building dependency tree... Reading state information... The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required: [ … ] Use 'apt autoremove' to remove them. The following packages will be REMOVED: [ … ] WARNING: The following essential packages will be removed. This should NOT be done unless you know exactly what you are doing! [ … ] 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1702 to remove and 0 not upgraded. [ … ] Cheers, David.
Re: After upgrade, what do you do about "removed" and "obsolete" packages ?
On 30/05/2024 16:22, Thomas Schmitt wrote: Max Nikulin wrote: apt-patterns(7) Wow. What kind of programming language can have inspired the developers to define such a syntax ? https://blog.jak-linux.org/2019/08/15/apt-patterns/ "apt list" has some limitations in comparison to "aptitude search". I have no idea what was the source of inspiration for aptitude, but this query language appeared perhaps a quarter of century ago. https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/aptitude/ch02s04s05.en.html For me it is hard to compose a query beyond trivial ones. My adventures with "apt list": Re: List packages from non-default repositories. Wed, 4 Oct 2023 17:26:47 +0700 https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/ufjel7$l9m$1...@ciao.gmane.io However I did not post last variant of the query. It is for aptitude. As to obsolete vs. local packages, my guess is that apt may label some version as obsolete if another version of the same package is still available from some repository. Otherwise it is local.
Re: After upgrade, what do you do about "removed" and "obsolete" packages ?
Le 30/05/2024, "Thomas Schmitt" a écrit: > So "local" would be just another word for "obsolete" ? My understanding is that “obsolete” and “local” may mean different things to the person who installed the packages (“obsolete” would correspond to the first item of the list at the end of my previous post, “local” to the second one); however, apt and aptitude can't distinguish between them: both categories are comprised of “packages that are installed but not available from the sources scanned during the last 'apt update' run (or 'aptitude update'). I believe someone already wrote something along these lines in this thread (maybe Max). In aptitude, the packages in question are all grouped in the category named “Obsolete and Locally Created Packages”, IMHO because there is no good way to programmatically distinguish between them. (A private package could very well be made available and installed from a private repository; or alternatively, installed with 'dpkg -i' without ever being put in an apt repository; therefore “has been installed in the past from an apt repository” is not a good criterion to distinguish between “obsolete packages” and “local” ones.) Note: I mentioned private packages to simplify wording, but the “Obsolete and Locally Created Packages” category would also contain packages that users sometimes download from third-party websites[1], installing them with 'dpkg -i' or the 'apt' command line tool, without adding any repository to their sources.list(.d). All these are “local packages” from my POV. Regards [1] Printer drivers in .deb form, libdvdcss stuff, etc. (make sure the source is trustworthy!) -- Florent
Re: After upgrade, what do you do about "removed" and "obsolete" packages ?
Hi, i wrote: > > Next documenation riddle is what the word "local" means in output lines > > like > > linux-image-5.10.0-rc2-ts/now 5.10.0-rc2-ts-37 amd64 [installed,local] Florent Rougon wrote: > I don't use this but guess it is as in aptitude, where “obsolete/local > packages” are packages that are installed (from dpkg's POV) but not > available from any of the repositories scanned in the last 'apt update' > run. So "local" would be just another word for "obsolete" ? Indeed, the output of apt list '?installed !?obsolete' | grep local shows only some packages with "locale" in their name, but none with "local" in the []-brackets. On the other hand apt list '?installed ?obsolete' | grep -v 'local]$' shows no packages, i.e. all lines of obsolete packages end by "local]". Nevertheless it would be nice to find documentation about this kind of info in the output of "apt list". Have a nice day :) Thomas
Re: After upgrade, what do you do about "removed" and "obsolete" packages ?
Hi Thomas, Le 30/05/2024, "Thomas Schmitt" a écrit: > Next documenation riddle is what the word "local" means in output lines > like > > linux-image-5.10.0-rc2-ts/now 5.10.0-rc2-ts-37 amd64 [installed,local] I don't use this but guess it is as in aptitude, where “obsolete/local packages” are packages that are installed (from dpkg's POV) but not available from any of the repositories scanned in the last 'apt update' run. This happens in particular with: - packages that used to be in a repo seen by 'apt update' (often, you installed said packages at that time), but are not included in your current apt sources (/etc/apt/sources.list, /etc/apt/sources.list.d/); this usually happens between Debian releases for some packages shipped by Debian; - packages that are not in any of the repos seen by 'apt update' and that you installed from .deb with 'dpkg -i' (I believe the apt command line tool can also do this); for instance, local packages you prepared yourself but didn't bother to put in an apt repository. Regards -- Florent
Re: After upgrade, what do you do about "removed" and "obsolete" packages ?
Hi, i wrote: > > But i am not sure whether the commercial package which i have to keep > > will be preserved with "apt autoremove". > > Is there a way to do a dry run which only tells what would happen if i > > were more courageous ? Mike Kupfer wrote: > When I use "apt autoremove", I am given a list of proposed removals and > a prompt about whether I want to proceed. Good to know that there are safeguards when i finally remove some of the "obsolete" packages. I wrote: > > How could i get a list of only the automatically installed obsolete > > packages ? > > (I still did not find any documentation about the '~c' or '~o' with > > "apt list".) Max Nikulin wrote: > apt-patterns(7) Wow. What kind of programming language can have inspired the developers to define such a syntax ? But hey, at least there is logic provided. \o/ So i try apt list '?installed ?obsolete ?automatic' This narrows the list from 220 to 192 packages. Even better, i don't have to diff the lists but can see the 28 other obsolete packages by apt list '?installed ?obsolete !?automatic' Among them are "hfsprogs", the self-made kernels, and the commercial package which i need to keep. Next documenation riddle is what the word "local" means in output lines like linux-image-5.10.0-rc2-ts/now 5.10.0-rc2-ts-37 amd64 [installed,local] (I may have missed something in the man pages of dpkg and dpkg-query, but their occurences of the word "local" do not look like related to the info from "apt list".) Have a nice day :) Thomas
Re: After upgrade, what do you do about "removed" and "obsolete" packages ?
On 29/05/2024 23:20, Thomas Schmitt wrote: How could i get a list of only the automatically installed obsolete packages ? (I still did not find any documentation about the '~c' or '~o' with "apt list".) apt-patterns(7) and dpkg(1). Apt can not distinguish packages installed by dpkg directly and by apt but not present in any configured repository any more. Both are "obsolete".
Re: After upgrade, what do you do about "removed" and "obsolete" packages ?
Thomas Schmitt wrote: > But i am not sure whether the commercial package which i have to keep > will be preserved with "apt autoremove". > Is there a way to do a dry run which only tells what would happen if i > were more courageous ? When I use "apt autoremove", I am given a list of proposed removals and a prompt about whether I want to proceed. cheers, mike
Re: After upgrade, what do you do about "removed" and "obsolete" packages ?
Hi, i wonder why none of the electricians on this list has an anecdote to share about dealing with "obsolete" packages after upgrade. No triumphs, defeats, or global catastrophes ? I wrote: > > https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.h tml#purge-removed-packages > > What does "[residual-config]" mean ? Marco Moock wrote: > Packages include system-wide configuration files. If packages are > removed, this configuration will not be deleted. You need to purge such > packages to remove it. So the smaller list of packages can be dealt with what the upgrade instructions propose: apt purge '~c' There remains the list of 220 "obsolete" packages. > > https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#obsolete > Packages have dependencies. Those will be marked as automatically > installed. They can be removed if no other package depends on them. But several of those packages were surely installed manually by me via dpkg -i after being made made as descibed in https://kernel-team.pages.debian.net/kernel-handbook/ch-common-tasks.html#s-common-building The predicate "obsolete" is not the same as "automatically installed". I understand that obsolete means having no successor package in the upgraded Debian release. How could i get a list of only the automatically installed obsolete packages ? (I still did not find any documentation about the '~c' or '~o' with "apt list".) > Be aware: If you install software beyond apt/dpkg that depends on files > in installed packages, you need to mark them as manually installed to > avoid being removed by autoremove. Google leads me to apt-mark for that purpose. But i am not sure whether the commercial package which i have to keep will be preserved with "apt autoremove". Is there a way to do a dry run which only tells what would happen if i were more courageous ? Have a nice day :) Thomas
Re: After upgrade, what do you do about "removed" and "obsolete" packages ?
On 2024-05-28 at 15:02, Marco Moock wrote: > Am 28.05.2024 um 20:38:46 Uhr schrieb Thomas Schmitt: >> What does "[residual-config]" mean ? > > Packages include system-wide configuration files. If packages are > removed, this configuration will not be deleted. You need to purge > such packages to remove it. On brief analysis, it looks like this reflects the same status which is reported in the Status line of the output of 'dpkg -s PACKAGENAME' with the string "deinstall ok config-files". YMMV, but I find that intuitive enough: the package used to be installed, and isn't anymore, but its config files have been left behind. (Note that if you have the package installed from multiple architectures, you will apparently need to specify the arch qualifier suffix to the package name in order for the command to not error out.) I don't remember using that dpkg command very often, but I do remember seeing that string often enough in the past, so there are probably other commands which will also report it if applicable. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: After upgrade, what do you do about "removed" and "obsolete" packages ?
Am 28.05.2024 um 20:38:46 Uhr schrieb Thomas Schmitt: > today i upgraded a Debian 11 system to 12 and am now scratching my > head over the final steps as described in > > https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#purge-removed-packages > > https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#obsolete Packages have dependencies. Those will be marked as automatically installed. They can be removed if no other package depends on them. You can do that with the autopurge/autoremove apt command. Be aware: If you install software beyond apt/dpkg that depends on files in installed packages, you need to mark them as manually installed to avoid being removed by autoremove. dpkg doesn't care about stuff manually installed. > What does "[residual-config]" mean ? Packages include system-wide configuration files. If packages are removed, this configuration will not be deleted. You need to purge such packages to remove it. -- Gruß Marco Send unsolicited bulk mail to 1716921526mu...@cartoonies.org
After upgrade, what do you do about "removed" and "obsolete" packages ?
Hi,
today i upgraded a Debian 11 system to 12 and am now scratching my head
over the final steps as described in
https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#purge-removed-packages
https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#obsolete
The command
apt list '~c'
shows 9 "removed packages":
fuse/stable 2.9.9-6+b1 amd64 [residual-config]
libreoffice-avmedia-backend-gstreamer/now 1:7.0.4-4+deb11u9 amd64
[residual-config]
linux-image-4.19.0-17-amd64/now 4.19.194-3 amd64 [residual-config]
linux-image-4.19.0-20-amd64/now 4.19.235-1 amd64 [residual-config]
linux-image-4.19.0-9-amd64/now 4.19.118-2+deb10u1 amd64 [residual-config]
python-twisted-core/now 18.9.0-3 all [residual-config]
python/now 2.7.16-1 amd64 [residual-config]
wicd-daemon/now 1.7.4+tb2-6 all [residual-config]
wicd-gtk/now 1.7.4+tb2-6 all [residual-config]
What does "[residual-config]" mean ?
The man page of apt is quite sparse. Is there something more detailed
available online ?
apt list '~o'
shows 220 "obsolete packages", of which at least one is a commercial
non-Debian package which is on the machine for commercial reasons.
Others are gcc-{8,9,10}, hfsprogs, linux-image-* from Debian 10 and from
my own kernel experiments, and lots of stuff of which i have no clue.
I wonder how others sift through such a list and decide what to do.
Have a nice day :)
Thomas
Re: no more sound after upgrade (trixie/sid) [SOLVED]
In the end, the problem had nothing to do with APT pinning, mixing Debian flavors, nor anything else mentioned in the previous messages. I've just noticed that in my XFCE mixer there is a tab "Configuration", where you can set the audio profile. I don't even know what an audio profile is supposed to do, but somehow it was set to HDMI stereo digital output (I assume it happened somewhat automatically during last upgrade). I just switched it back to analog and I got my analog sound back.
Re: no more sound after upgrade (trixie/sid)
Op 26-05-2024 om 15:26 schreef Michael Kjörling: Quite a few people run Debian testing. Some even as a daily driver. That's fine. But if you do, you need to keep in mind that it _is_ "testing". You can't expect the same level of stability as with the stable distribution. And you definitely need to pay close attention to what every upgrade wants to do to your system _especially_ in terms of removals. Absolutely. If something like that threatens to happen, I usually put the offending package on hold and check what issues that causes. That has worked well for me so far. The recent t64 switch period was... interesting.
Re: no more sound after upgrade (trixie/sid)
Il 26/05/24 15:26, Michael Kjörling ha scritto: On 26 May 2024 13:08 +0200, from lu...@sulweb.org (Lucio Crusca): _Or_ you can see that [...] a power tool that requires understanding of the consequences of the results. I absolutely agree with you, but I feel like the point here (where "$here" == "in my topic") should a bit of a different one: granted, my system is "strange", or call it whatever you like, but, given this situation, and given that no one can really tell if the strangeness (APT pinning) is really the cause of my problem, does anybody have any suggestions for me that can help me solve the problem? And no, "reinstall from scratch and forget APT pinning" is not the solution I'm looking for: I already know I could do that, but I'm more interested in understanding what went wrong. I can even live without sound while I try to understand that. In other words, assuming your system were to behave like mine, what would you do to understand why it detects the audio device, but not the analog output sink?
Re: no more sound after upgrade (trixie/sid)
On 26 May 2024 13:08 +0200, from lu...@sulweb.org (Lucio Crusca): > Sometimes it happens some packages get automatically removed from Debian > testing (for example because of rc-bugs), so if you ever need one of those > packages that have been removed, you can only wait for it to be added back, > or mix stable/unstable (or install from upstream, but that's even worse). _Or_ you can see that an apt-get dist-upgrade / apt full-upgrade wants to remove a package that you need, and pin the package you need _before_ proceeding with the upgrade so as to prevent the removal of that package, and thereby also likely causing some other packages to be held back; and then somehow ensure that you will revisit the pin later. Quite a few people run Debian testing. Some even as a daily driver. That's fine. But if you do, you need to keep in mind that it _is_ "testing". You can't expect the same level of stability as with the stable distribution. And you definitely need to pay close attention to what every upgrade wants to do to your system _especially_ in terms of removals. Mixing packages from testing and stable is no more guaranteed to work than mixing packages from, say, bullseye and bookworm; in that it might work, or it might not, and that the outcome will very much depend on the specifics of the packages involved and what they use each other for. And when it doesn't work, the failure modes aren't necessarily going to be at all obvious. Just because apt pinning can be wrangled into creating a system with a mix of bookworm, trixie and sid package versions doesn't mean that using it to do that is a good idea, or that the resulting system will perform as expected. Apt pinning is a power tool that requires understanding of the consequences of the results. -- Michael Kjörling https://michael.kjorling.se “Remember when, on the Internet, nobody cared that you were a dog?”
Re: no more sound after upgrade (trixie/sid)
On Sun, 26 May 2024 13:16:28 +0200
Kamil Jońca wrote:
Hello Kamil,
>About 2 years ago I got new laptop.
Sweeping generalisation coming;
Laptops can be troublesome for Linux when they're fairly recently
released. Largely because the makers play fast and loose with accepted
standards and cut corners to keep costs down.
Often, Linux has to 'catch up' as it were. Even then the process relies
on somebody having access to the affected machinery for long enough to
come up with solutions for said machine's shortcomings.
--
Regards _ "Valid sig separator is {dash}{dash}{space}"
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is never immediately apparent"
/ _)rad "Is it only me that has a working delete key?"
Early morning when I wake up I look like Kiss but without the make-up
Strong - Robbie Williams
pgph6tyiDbzr6.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: no more sound after upgrade (trixie/sid)
Mindaugas writes: [..] > Yes, people do. It's their systems. But then there is no need to cry > and complain that something is not working or is not working properly. > Personally, I've never had any problems with sound on Debian. Maybe You were lucky. About 2 years ago I got new laptop. And I have had problems, as kernel module did not recognise some auxiliary device. As a resule there were no sound in speakers. Yes this was resolved later. KJ -- http://stopstopnop.pl/stop_stopnop.pl_o_nas.html Lee's Law: Mother said there would be days like this, but she never said that there'd be so many!
Re: no more sound after upgrade (trixie/sid)
Il 25/05/24 17:25, Frank ha scritto: I've been running a 'pure' testing since 2008. No sid or stable in sight. You have a point, I should have specified better what I meant. I tried running pure Debian testing too, but, in my case, given the way I use my system, I soon realized that testing wasn't enough for me and I found that APT pinning was there just for strange peolple like me who need some bit more than what a pure Debian testing has to offer. So, in my case a pure Debian testing is not enough and it seems I'm not alone, since someone out there invented APT pinning and someone even uses it. I wrote: > testing is not a complete distro, in that you *need* to add stable > and/or sid in order to actually use it Let's rephrase that: Sometimes it happens some packages get automatically removed from Debian testing (for example because of rc-bugs), so if you ever need one of those packages that have been removed, you can only wait for it to be added back, or mix stable/unstable (or install from upstream, but that's even worse). In other words, assuming "completeness" means having all the packaged software that others Debian flavors have, sometimes it happens Debian testing isn't complete. It happened to me in the past, so I mixed in stable and sid.
testing MATE upgrade broke panels, downgrading fixed it
as an FYI, last night this wasn't a good idea: The following packages will be upgraded: gir1.2-matepanelapplet-4.0 (1.27.1-2+b2 => 1.27.1-3) libmate-panel-applet-4-1 (1.27.1-2+b2 => 1.27.1-3) libmate-panel-applet-dev (1.27.1-2+b2 => 1.27.1-3) mate-panel (1.27.1-2+b2 => 1.27.1-3) mate-panel-common (1.27.1-2 => 1.27.1-3) this morning downgraded to previous version and all is back to working. held this update for now... songbird
Re: no more sound after upgrade (trixie/sid)
Il 25/05/24 17:54, Mindaugas ha scritto: Yes, people do. It's their systems. Just like my system is mine. But then there is no need to cry and complain that something is not working or is not working properly. Cry and complain? I've only asked for help, giving all the info I have about my system. If you happen to know the solution, then you are welcome to share it. All the rest is blah blah blah. Personally, I've never had any problems with sound on Debian. Maybe because I don't do the kind of scenarios you do (apt pinning, mixing packages from stable, testing and unstable etc.) Correct: Maybe. But, who knows?
Re: no more sound after upgrade (trixie/sid)
On Sat, 2024-05-25 at 14:51 +0200, Lucio Crusca wrote: > > > Il 25/05/24 13:51, Mindaugas ha scritto: > > Hello. > > Don't make a FrankenDebian. Oh, I'm sorry. Your system has already > > become like this. > > > > P.S. > > The reason things can break is because the software packaged for > > one > > Debian release is built to be compatible with the rest of the > > software > > for that release. > > This is the utmost futile answer I ever received in 22 years of my > "FrankenDebian", but thanks for your time nevertheless. > > Besides it is also a misleading answer: testing is not a complete > distro, in that you *need* to add stable and/or sid in order to > actually > use it, and guess what? A lot of people out there actually do that. > Oh, > even APT pinning [1] exists just for that. > > Anyway, if you ever happen to find something like a useful answer, > you're welcolme to post it here. Thanks in advance. > > [1]: https://wiki.debian.org/AptConfiguration > > Yes, people do. It's their systems. But then there is no need to cry and complain that something is not working or is not working properly. Personally, I've never had any problems with sound on Debian. Maybe because I don't do the kind of scenarios you do (apt pinning, mixing packages from stable, testing and unstable etc.)
Re: no more sound after upgrade (trixie/sid)
Op 25-05-2024 om 14:51 schreef Lucio Crusca: Besides it is also a misleading answer: testing is not a complete distro, in that you *need* to add stable and/or sid in order to actually use it Nonsense. I've been running a 'pure' testing since 2008. No sid or stable in sight. Please don't spread misinformation.
Re: no more sound after upgrade (trixie/sid)
Il 25/05/24 13:51, Mindaugas ha scritto: Hello. Don't make a FrankenDebian. Oh, I'm sorry. Your system has already become like this. P.S. The reason things can break is because the software packaged for one Debian release is built to be compatible with the rest of the software for that release. This is the utmost futile answer I ever received in 22 years of my "FrankenDebian", but thanks for your time nevertheless. Besides it is also a misleading answer: testing is not a complete distro, in that you *need* to add stable and/or sid in order to actually use it, and guess what? A lot of people out there actually do that. Oh, even APT pinning [1] exists just for that. Anyway, if you ever happen to find something like a useful answer, you're welcolme to post it here. Thanks in advance. [1]: https://wiki.debian.org/AptConfiguration
Re: no more sound after upgrade (trixie/sid)
On Fri, 2024-05-24 at 14:26 +0200, Lucio Crusca wrote: > My notebook has Trixie for most packages, then some from Bookworm and > a > few form Sid. > > Pipewire used to output sound just fine until yesterday, when I > upgraded > the whole system via aptitude and rebooted. > > Until yesterday I also had rc-buggy in my sources-list, but then I > removed it (before the upgrade) because of some unresolvable > dependencies. > > Today Alsa lists my integrated analog audio device: > > $ aplay -l > List of PLAYBACK Hardware Devices > card 0: PCH [HDA Intel PCH], device 0: ALC298 Analog [ALC298 Analog] > Subdevices: 1/1 > Subdevice #0: subdevice #0 > card 0: PCH [HDA Intel PCH], device 3: HDMI 0 [HDMI 0] > Subdevices: 1/1 > Subdevice #0: subdevice #0 > card 0: PCH [HDA Intel PCH], device 7: HDMI 1 [HDMI 1] > Subdevices: 1/1 > Subdevice #0: subdevice #0 > card 0: PCH [HDA Intel PCH], device 8: HDMI 2 [HDMI 2] > Subdevices: 1/1 > Subdevice #0: subdevice #0 > > but then alsamixer doesn't find it: > > $ alsamixer > the menu only shows "Card: PipeWire \n Chip: PipeWire ..." and a > message: "This sound device does not have any controls" > > Pipewire and `wpctl status` seem to recognize the device (but not the > analog sink): > > $ pw-cli list-objects > [...] > id 44, type PipeWire:Interface:Device/3 > object.serial = "44" > factory.id = "14" > client.id = "41" > device.api = "alsa" > device.description = "Audio interno" > device.name = "alsa_card.pci-_00_1f.3" > device.nick = "HDA Intel PCH" > media.class = "Audio/Device" > > $ wpctl status > PipeWire 'pipewire-0' [1.0.6, lucio@t470, cookie:1325159986] > └─ Clients: > [...] > Audio > ├─ Devices: > │ 44. Audio interno [alsa] > │ > ├─ Sinks: > │ 46. Audio interno Digital Stereo (HDMI) [vol: 1.00] > │ > ├─ Sources: > [...] > > The XFCE audio mixer only shows the HDMI output (not connected), but > when I run it, I can hear a little noise in my analog headphones, > which > is the same noise I used to hear when I ran any application that > output > sound and it initialized the output sound device until yesterday. > > Also `pactl list sinks' only shows the HDMI output. > > Google Chrome seems to happily play YouTube videos, except no sound > ever > comes out (maybe it is routing audio to the disconnected HDMI > output?). > > pipewire-pulse 1.0.6-1 is installed, > /etc/pipewire/media-session.d/with-pulseaudio exists and wireplumber > is > running. > > Aplay fails to play a simple wav: > > $ aplay /usr/share/sounds/alsa/Front_Left.wav > Playing WAVE '/usr/share/sounds/alsa/Front_Left.wav' : Signed 16 bit > Little Endian, Rate 48000 Hz, Mono > aplay: set_params:1456: Unable to install hw params: > [...] > > And I've run out of ideas. > Hello. Don't make a FrankenDebian. Oh, I'm sorry. Your system has already become like this. P.S. The reason things can break is because the software packaged for one Debian release is built to be compatible with the rest of the software for that release.
no more sound after upgrade (trixie/sid)
My notebook has Trixie for most packages, then some from Bookworm and a few form Sid. Pipewire used to output sound just fine until yesterday, when I upgraded the whole system via aptitude and rebooted. Until yesterday I also had rc-buggy in my sources-list, but then I removed it (before the upgrade) because of some unresolvable dependencies. Today Alsa lists my integrated analog audio device: $ aplay -l List of PLAYBACK Hardware Devices card 0: PCH [HDA Intel PCH], device 0: ALC298 Analog [ALC298 Analog] Subdevices: 1/1 Subdevice #0: subdevice #0 card 0: PCH [HDA Intel PCH], device 3: HDMI 0 [HDMI 0] Subdevices: 1/1 Subdevice #0: subdevice #0 card 0: PCH [HDA Intel PCH], device 7: HDMI 1 [HDMI 1] Subdevices: 1/1 Subdevice #0: subdevice #0 card 0: PCH [HDA Intel PCH], device 8: HDMI 2 [HDMI 2] Subdevices: 1/1 Subdevice #0: subdevice #0 but then alsamixer doesn't find it: $ alsamixer the menu only shows "Card: PipeWire \n Chip: PipeWire ..." and a message: "This sound device does not have any controls" Pipewire and `wpctl status` seem to recognize the device (but not the analog sink): $ pw-cli list-objects [...] id 44, type PipeWire:Interface:Device/3 object.serial = "44" factory.id = "14" client.id = "41" device.api = "alsa" device.description = "Audio interno" device.name = "alsa_card.pci-_00_1f.3" device.nick = "HDA Intel PCH" media.class = "Audio/Device" $ wpctl status PipeWire 'pipewire-0' [1.0.6, lucio@t470, cookie:1325159986] └─ Clients: [...] Audio ├─ Devices: │ 44. Audio interno [alsa] │ ├─ Sinks: │ 46. Audio interno Digital Stereo (HDMI) [vol: 1.00] │ ├─ Sources: [...] The XFCE audio mixer only shows the HDMI output (not connected), but when I run it, I can hear a little noise in my analog headphones, which is the same noise I used to hear when I ran any application that output sound and it initialized the output sound device until yesterday. Also `pactl list sinks' only shows the HDMI output. Google Chrome seems to happily play YouTube videos, except no sound ever comes out (maybe it is routing audio to the disconnected HDMI output?). pipewire-pulse 1.0.6-1 is installed, /etc/pipewire/media-session.d/with-pulseaudio exists and wireplumber is running. Aplay fails to play a simple wav: $ aplay /usr/share/sounds/alsa/Front_Left.wav Playing WAVE '/usr/share/sounds/alsa/Front_Left.wav' : Signed 16 bit Little Endian, Rate 48000 Hz, Mono aplay: set_params:1456: Unable to install hw params: [...] And I've run out of ideas.
Re: Paquete no Upgrade
Buenas, El jue., 2 may. 2024 18:23, Camaleón escribió: > El 2024-05-02 a las 07:50 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > > On Thu May 2, 2024 at 2:42 AM -03, Javier Barroso wrote: > > (...) > > > > > Hace mucho que estoy en testing, y cosas así antes no las veía (o > por lo > > > > menos que yo requerde): > > > > -- > > > > me in ~ took 20s > > > > 20:41:12 ❯ sudo apt upgrade > > > > Upgrading: > > > > bsdextrautils fdisklibfdisk1libsmartcols1 rfkill > > > > util-linux-locales > > > > bsdutils libblkid-dev libmount-dev libuuid1 util-linux > > > > uuid-dev > > > > eject libblkid1libmount1mount > util-linux-extra > > > > > > > > Not upgrading: > > > > profanity > > > > > > > > Summary: > > > > Upgrading: 17, Installing: 0, Removing: 0, Not Upgrading: 1 > > > > Download size: 5873 kB > > > > Freed space: 388 kB > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > y con dist-upgrade: > > > > > > > > -- > > > > me in ~ took 46s > > > > 20:42:05 ❯ sudo apt dist-upgrade > > > > Upgrading: > > > > profanity > > > > > > > > Installing dependencies: > > > > libgpgme11t64 libotr5t64 > > > > > > > > Suggested packages: > > > > libotr5-bin > > > > > > > > REMOVING: > > > > libgpgme11 libotr5 > > > > > > > > Summary: > > > > Upgrading: 1, Installing: 2, Removing: 2, Not Upgrading: 0 > > > > Download size: 863 kB > > > > Space needed: 12.3 kB / 7773 MB available > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > No recuerdo que para actualizar dependencias desintale las > dependecias > > > > viejas e instale las nuevas. > > > > > > > > > Debe tener que ver con la última actualización de apt, hay un nuevo > > > algoritmo de resolución de actualizaciones [1] > > > > > > Saludos > > > > > > [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/debian/s/balgGuBgkG > > > > Creo que debe ser eso, estamos acostumbrados al anterior apt que no daba > > tanto info sin pedírsela. > > > > Estoy esperando a ver como va en stable en el server, pero no tengo nada > > para actualizar, como para comparar. > > En principio, ninguna relación ;-) Cierto es, lo anuncia para el futuro, perdonad la confusión
Re: Paquete no Upgrade
El 2024-05-02 a las 07:50 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > On Thu May 2, 2024 at 2:42 AM -03, Javier Barroso wrote: (...) > > > Hace mucho que estoy en testing, y cosas así antes no las veía (o por lo > > > menos que yo requerde): > > > -- > > > me in ~ took 20s > > > 20:41:12 ❯ sudo apt upgrade > > > Upgrading: > > > bsdextrautils fdisklibfdisk1libsmartcols1 rfkill > > > util-linux-locales > > > bsdutils libblkid-dev libmount-dev libuuid1 util-linux > > > uuid-dev > > > eject libblkid1libmount1mount util-linux-extra > > > > > > Not upgrading: > > > profanity > > > > > > Summary: > > > Upgrading: 17, Installing: 0, Removing: 0, Not Upgrading: 1 > > > Download size: 5873 kB > > > Freed space: 388 kB > > > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > y con dist-upgrade: > > > > > > -- > > > me in ~ took 46s > > > 20:42:05 ❯ sudo apt dist-upgrade > > > Upgrading: > > > profanity > > > > > > Installing dependencies: > > > libgpgme11t64 libotr5t64 > > > > > > Suggested packages: > > > libotr5-bin > > > > > > REMOVING: > > > libgpgme11 libotr5 > > > > > > Summary: > > > Upgrading: 1, Installing: 2, Removing: 2, Not Upgrading: 0 > > > Download size: 863 kB > > > Space needed: 12.3 kB / 7773 MB available > > > > > > -- > > > > > > No recuerdo que para actualizar dependencias desintale las dependecias > > > viejas e instale las nuevas. > > > > > > Debe tener que ver con la última actualización de apt, hay un nuevo > > algoritmo de resolución de actualizaciones [1] > > > > Saludos > > > > [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/debian/s/balgGuBgkG > > Creo que debe ser eso, estamos acostumbrados al anterior apt que no daba > tanto info sin pedírsela. > > Estoy esperando a ver como va en stable en el server, pero no tengo nada > para actualizar, como para comparar. En principio, ninguna relación ;-) El cambio que anuncian en la nueva versión es (principalmente) de la interfaz (UX) no con respecto a la gestión interna de los paquetes ni las dependencias. https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/a/apt/apt_2.9.2_changelog apt (2.9.0) unstable; urgency=medium * Welcome to the APT 3.0 development series. It has a new UI for apt(8). It has colors, columnar display, some more padding, and shows removals last (Closes: #755088), making the output more easy to quickly scan. Saludos, -- Camaleón
Re: Paquete no Upgrade
On Thu May 2, 2024 at 2:42 AM -03, Javier Barroso wrote: > Buenas, > > El jue., 2 may. 2024 3:43, N4ch0 escribió: > > > On Wed May 1, 2024 at 2:40 PM -03, Camaleón wrote: > > > El 2024-05-01 a las 11:49 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > > > > > > > On Wed May 1, 2024 at 2:50 AM -03, César Espino wrote: > > > > > Me pasa lo mismo, quiero ser paciente para que se arreglen. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:48 AM Camaleón > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > El 2024-04-30 a las 10:40 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > > > El mar, 30 abr 2024 a las 10:35, Camaleón () > > > > > > escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > > (...) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Te paso: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me in ~ took 25s > > > > > > > > > > 00:19:22 ❯ sudo apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > > > > > > > > > Reading package lists... Done > > > > > > > > > > Building dependency tree... Done > > > > > > > > > > Reading state information... Done > > > > > > > > > > Calculating upgrade... Done > > > > > > > > > > The following packages have been kept back: > > > > > > > > > >libzvbi-common (0.2.42-1.1 => 0.2.42-2) > > > > > > > > > >0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not > > upgraded. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > La orden es: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apt-get update && apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > > > > > > > > ^^ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (actualiza siempre antes los repos/paquetes) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vale, ya veo lo que pasa, en mi tetsing me dice exactamente lo > > mismo > > > > > > > > (tengo 2 paquetes retenidos). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hay problemas de dependencias entre paquetes que no se pueden > > resolver > > > > > > > > por apt automáticamente, bien por error en el empaquetado o > > porque hay > > > > > > > > que esperar a que se actualicen los repos y se incorporen las > > nuevas > > > > > > > > dependencias. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > La orden que me ha dado la pista es: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apt-get --with-new-pkgs upgrade libzvbi-common > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hoy me ha actualizado *cientos* de paquetes, toca esperar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No estoy frente al equipo ahora, que te ha arrojado esa orden? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apt-get --with-new-pkgs upgrade libzvbi-common > > > > > > > > > > > > Pues te dice que tiene problemas indirectos con 2 paquetes de VLC, > > que > > > > > > efectivamente sí están rotos (ahora mismo) en testing: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > https://packages.debian.org/trixie/vlc-plugin-base > > > > > > > > > > > > dep: libaribb24-0 (>= 1.0.3) > > > > > > Package not available > > > > > > > > > > > > dep: libspatialaudio0 (>= 0.3.0+git20180730+dfsg1) > > > > > > Package not available > > > > > > > > > > > > dep: libzvbi0 (>= 0.2.35) > > > > > > Package not available > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. > > > > > > https://packages.debian.org/trixie/libavcodec60 > > > > > > dep: libzvbi0 (>= 0.2.35) > > > > > > Package not available > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A todo esto, está asentado en alguna web esto que está pasando? en > > > > tracker por ej? > > > > > > En testing/sid esta situación es la habitual en determinadas épocas. >
Re: Paquete no Upgrade
El 2024-05-01 a las 20:47 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > On Wed May 1, 2024 at 2:40 PM -03, Camaleón wrote: (...) > > > > > > > > > Te paso: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me in ~ took 25s > > > > > > > > > 00:19:22 ❯ sudo apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > > > > > > > > Reading package lists... Done > > > > > > > > > Building dependency tree... Done > > > > > > > > > Reading state information... Done > > > > > > > > > Calculating upgrade... Done > > > > > > > > > The following packages have been kept back: > > > > > > > > >libzvbi-common (0.2.42-1.1 => 0.2.42-2) > > > > > > > > >0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not > > > > > > > > > upgraded. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > La orden es: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apt-get update && apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > > > > > > > ^^ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (actualiza siempre antes los repos/paquetes) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vale, ya veo lo que pasa, en mi tetsing me dice exactamente lo > > > > > > > mismo > > > > > > > (tengo 2 paquetes retenidos). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hay problemas de dependencias entre paquetes que no se pueden > > > > > > > resolver > > > > > > > por apt automáticamente, bien por error en el empaquetado o > > > > > > > porque hay > > > > > > > que esperar a que se actualicen los repos y se incorporen las > > > > > > > nuevas > > > > > > > dependencias. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > La orden que me ha dado la pista es: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apt-get --with-new-pkgs upgrade libzvbi-common > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hoy me ha actualizado *cientos* de paquetes, toca esperar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No estoy frente al equipo ahora, que te ha arrojado esa orden? > > > > > > > > > > > > apt-get --with-new-pkgs upgrade libzvbi-common > > > > > > > > > > Pues te dice que tiene problemas indirectos con 2 paquetes de VLC, que > > > > > efectivamente sí están rotos (ahora mismo) en testing: > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > https://packages.debian.org/trixie/vlc-plugin-base > > > > > > > > > > dep: libaribb24-0 (>= 1.0.3) > > > > > Package not available > > > > > > > > > > dep: libspatialaudio0 (>= 0.3.0+git20180730+dfsg1) > > > > > Package not available > > > > > > > > > > dep: libzvbi0 (>= 0.2.35) > > > > > Package not available > > > > > > > > > > 2. > > > > > https://packages.debian.org/trixie/libavcodec60 > > > > > dep: libzvbi0 (>= 0.2.35) > > > > > Package not available > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A todo esto, está asentado en alguna web esto que está pasando? en > > > tracker por ej? > > > > En testing/sid esta situación es la habitual en determinadas épocas. > > > > Los desarrolladores publican los paquetes _cuando pueden_ pero no > > siempre están sincronizados/coordinados con otros paquetes y/o > > bibliotecas y estas son las conseuencias (problemas de dependencias > > indirectas y paquetes rotos). > > > > En Sid suele ser menos problemático porque recibe antes las > > actualizaciones y los errores se corrige antes. > > > > > Por ej el paquete que a vos Camaleon te dice que no está disponible, no > > > termino de entender la lógica de la web [1] > > > > > > > > > [1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libspatialaudio > > > > El problema no es con _ese paquete_ sino con _una biblioteca de ese > > paquete_, que no está disponible para testing (libspatialaudio0): > > > > https://packages.debian.org/sid/libspatialaudio0 > > > Hace mucho que estoy en testing, y cosas así ant
Re: Paquete no Upgrade
Buenas, El jue., 2 may. 2024 3:43, N4ch0 escribió: > On Wed May 1, 2024 at 2:40 PM -03, Camaleón wrote: > > El 2024-05-01 a las 11:49 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > > > > > On Wed May 1, 2024 at 2:50 AM -03, César Espino wrote: > > > > Me pasa lo mismo, quiero ser paciente para que se arreglen. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:48 AM Camaleón > wrote: > > > > > > > > > El 2024-04-30 a las 10:40 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > El mar, 30 abr 2024 a las 10:35, Camaleón () > > > > > escribió: > > > > > > > > > > (...) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Te paso: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me in ~ took 25s > > > > > > > > > 00:19:22 ❯ sudo apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > > > > > > > > Reading package lists... Done > > > > > > > > > Building dependency tree... Done > > > > > > > > > Reading state information... Done > > > > > > > > > Calculating upgrade... Done > > > > > > > > > The following packages have been kept back: > > > > > > > > >libzvbi-common (0.2.42-1.1 => 0.2.42-2) > > > > > > > > >0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not > upgraded. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > La orden es: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apt-get update && apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > > > > > > > ^^ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (actualiza siempre antes los repos/paquetes) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vale, ya veo lo que pasa, en mi tetsing me dice exactamente lo > mismo > > > > > > > (tengo 2 paquetes retenidos). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hay problemas de dependencias entre paquetes que no se pueden > resolver > > > > > > > por apt automáticamente, bien por error en el empaquetado o > porque hay > > > > > > > que esperar a que se actualicen los repos y se incorporen las > nuevas > > > > > > > dependencias. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > La orden que me ha dado la pista es: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apt-get --with-new-pkgs upgrade libzvbi-common > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hoy me ha actualizado *cientos* de paquetes, toca esperar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No estoy frente al equipo ahora, que te ha arrojado esa orden? > > > > > > > > > > > > apt-get --with-new-pkgs upgrade libzvbi-common > > > > > > > > > > Pues te dice que tiene problemas indirectos con 2 paquetes de VLC, > que > > > > > efectivamente sí están rotos (ahora mismo) en testing: > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > https://packages.debian.org/trixie/vlc-plugin-base > > > > > > > > > > dep: libaribb24-0 (>= 1.0.3) > > > > > Package not available > > > > > > > > > > dep: libspatialaudio0 (>= 0.3.0+git20180730+dfsg1) > > > > > Package not available > > > > > > > > > > dep: libzvbi0 (>= 0.2.35) > > > > > Package not available > > > > > > > > > > 2. > > > > > https://packages.debian.org/trixie/libavcodec60 > > > > > dep: libzvbi0 (>= 0.2.35) > > > > > Package not available > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A todo esto, está asentado en alguna web esto que está pasando? en > > > tracker por ej? > > > > En testing/sid esta situación es la habitual en determinadas épocas. > > > > Los desarrolladores publican los paquetes _cuando pueden_ pero no > > siempre están sincronizados/coordinados con otros paquetes y/o > > bibliotecas y estas son las conseuencias (problemas de dependencias > > indirectas y paquetes rotos). > > > > En Sid suele ser menos problemático porque recibe antes las > > actualizaciones y los errores se corrige antes. > > > > > Por ej el paquete que a vos Camaleon te dice que no está disponible,
Re: Paquete no Upgrade
On Wed May 1, 2024 at 2:40 PM -03, Camaleón wrote: > El 2024-05-01 a las 11:49 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > > > On Wed May 1, 2024 at 2:50 AM -03, César Espino wrote: > > > Me pasa lo mismo, quiero ser paciente para que se arreglen. > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:48 AM Camaleón wrote: > > > > > > > El 2024-04-30 a las 10:40 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > > > > > > > > > El mar, 30 abr 2024 a las 10:35, Camaleón () > > > > escribió: > > > > > > > > (...) > > > > > > > > > > > > Te paso: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me in ~ took 25s > > > > > > > > 00:19:22 ❯ sudo apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > > > > > > > Reading package lists... Done > > > > > > > > Building dependency tree... Done > > > > > > > > Reading state information... Done > > > > > > > > Calculating upgrade... Done > > > > > > > > The following packages have been kept back: > > > > > > > >libzvbi-common (0.2.42-1.1 => 0.2.42-2) > > > > > > > >0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not > > > > > > > > upgraded. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > La orden es: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apt-get update && apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > > > > > > ^^ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (actualiza siempre antes los repos/paquetes) > > > > > > > > > > > > Vale, ya veo lo que pasa, en mi tetsing me dice exactamente lo mismo > > > > > > (tengo 2 paquetes retenidos). > > > > > > > > > > > > Hay problemas de dependencias entre paquetes que no se pueden > > > > > > resolver > > > > > > por apt automáticamente, bien por error en el empaquetado o porque > > > > > > hay > > > > > > que esperar a que se actualicen los repos y se incorporen las nuevas > > > > > > dependencias. > > > > > > > > > > > > La orden que me ha dado la pista es: > > > > > > > > > > > > apt-get --with-new-pkgs upgrade libzvbi-common > > > > > > > > > > > > Hoy me ha actualizado *cientos* de paquetes, toca esperar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No estoy frente al equipo ahora, que te ha arrojado esa orden? > > > > > > > > > > apt-get --with-new-pkgs upgrade libzvbi-common > > > > > > > > Pues te dice que tiene problemas indirectos con 2 paquetes de VLC, que > > > > efectivamente sí están rotos (ahora mismo) en testing: > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > https://packages.debian.org/trixie/vlc-plugin-base > > > > > > > > dep: libaribb24-0 (>= 1.0.3) > > > > Package not available > > > > > > > > dep: libspatialaudio0 (>= 0.3.0+git20180730+dfsg1) > > > > Package not available > > > > > > > > dep: libzvbi0 (>= 0.2.35) > > > > Package not available > > > > > > > > 2. > > > > https://packages.debian.org/trixie/libavcodec60 > > > > dep: libzvbi0 (>= 0.2.35) > > > > Package not available > > > > > > > > > > > > A todo esto, está asentado en alguna web esto que está pasando? en > > tracker por ej? > > En testing/sid esta situación es la habitual en determinadas épocas. > > Los desarrolladores publican los paquetes _cuando pueden_ pero no > siempre están sincronizados/coordinados con otros paquetes y/o > bibliotecas y estas son las conseuencias (problemas de dependencias > indirectas y paquetes rotos). > > En Sid suele ser menos problemático porque recibe antes las > actualizaciones y los errores se corrige antes. > > > Por ej el paquete que a vos Camaleon te dice que no está disponible, no > > termino de entender la lógica de la web [1] > > > > > > [1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libspatialaudio > > El problema no es con _ese paquete_ sino con _una biblioteca de ese > paquete_, que no está disponible para testing (libspatialaudio0): > > https://packages.debian.org/sid/libspatialaudio0 > > Saludos, > > > Saludos, Hace mucho que estoy en testing, y cosas así antes no las veía (o por lo menos que yo requerde): -- me in ~ took 20s 20:41:12 ❯ sudo apt upgrade Upgrading: bsdextrautils fdisklibfdisk1libsmartcols1 rfkill util-linux-locales bsdutils libblkid-dev libmount-dev libuuid1 util-linux uuid-dev eject libblkid1libmount1mount util-linux-extra Not upgrading: profanity Summary: Upgrading: 17, Installing: 0, Removing: 0, Not Upgrading: 1 Download size: 5873 kB Freed space: 388 kB -- y con dist-upgrade: -- me in ~ took 46s 20:42:05 ❯ sudo apt dist-upgrade Upgrading: profanity Installing dependencies: libgpgme11t64 libotr5t64 Suggested packages: libotr5-bin REMOVING: libgpgme11 libotr5 Summary: Upgrading: 1, Installing: 2, Removing: 2, Not Upgrading: 0 Download size: 863 kB Space needed: 12.3 kB / 7773 MB available -- No recuerdo que para actualizar dependencias desintale las dependecias viejas e instale las nuevas.
Re: Paquete no Upgrade
El 2024-05-01 a las 11:49 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > On Wed May 1, 2024 at 2:50 AM -03, César Espino wrote: > > Me pasa lo mismo, quiero ser paciente para que se arreglen. > > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:48 AM Camaleón wrote: > > > > > El 2024-04-30 a las 10:40 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > > > > > > > El mar, 30 abr 2024 a las 10:35, Camaleón () > > > escribió: > > > > > > (...) > > > > > > > > > > Te paso: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me in ~ took 25s > > > > > > > 00:19:22 ❯ sudo apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > > > > > > Reading package lists... Done > > > > > > > Building dependency tree... Done > > > > > > > Reading state information... Done > > > > > > > Calculating upgrade... Done > > > > > > > The following packages have been kept back: > > > > > > >libzvbi-common (0.2.42-1.1 => 0.2.42-2) > > > > > > >0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded. > > > > > > > > > > > > La orden es: > > > > > > > > > > > > apt-get update && apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > > > > > ^^ > > > > > > > > > > > > (actualiza siempre antes los repos/paquetes) > > > > > > > > > > Vale, ya veo lo que pasa, en mi tetsing me dice exactamente lo mismo > > > > > (tengo 2 paquetes retenidos). > > > > > > > > > > Hay problemas de dependencias entre paquetes que no se pueden resolver > > > > > por apt automáticamente, bien por error en el empaquetado o porque hay > > > > > que esperar a que se actualicen los repos y se incorporen las nuevas > > > > > dependencias. > > > > > > > > > > La orden que me ha dado la pista es: > > > > > > > > > > apt-get --with-new-pkgs upgrade libzvbi-common > > > > > > > > > > Hoy me ha actualizado *cientos* de paquetes, toca esperar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > No estoy frente al equipo ahora, que te ha arrojado esa orden? > > > > > > > > apt-get --with-new-pkgs upgrade libzvbi-common > > > > > > Pues te dice que tiene problemas indirectos con 2 paquetes de VLC, que > > > efectivamente sí están rotos (ahora mismo) en testing: > > > > > > 1. > > > https://packages.debian.org/trixie/vlc-plugin-base > > > > > > dep: libaribb24-0 (>= 1.0.3) > > > Package not available > > > > > > dep: libspatialaudio0 (>= 0.3.0+git20180730+dfsg1) > > > Package not available > > > > > > dep: libzvbi0 (>= 0.2.35) > > > Package not available > > > > > > 2. > > > https://packages.debian.org/trixie/libavcodec60 > > > dep: libzvbi0 (>= 0.2.35) > > > Package not available > > > > > > > > A todo esto, está asentado en alguna web esto que está pasando? en > tracker por ej? En testing/sid esta situación es la habitual en determinadas épocas. Los desarrolladores publican los paquetes _cuando pueden_ pero no siempre están sincronizados/coordinados con otros paquetes y/o bibliotecas y estas son las conseuencias (problemas de dependencias indirectas y paquetes rotos). En Sid suele ser menos problemático porque recibe antes las actualizaciones y los errores se corrige antes. > Por ej el paquete que a vos Camaleon te dice que no está disponible, no > termino de entender la lógica de la web [1] > > > [1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libspatialaudio El problema no es con _ese paquete_ sino con _una biblioteca de ese paquete_, que no está disponible para testing (libspatialaudio0): https://packages.debian.org/sid/libspatialaudio0 Saludos, Saludos, -- Camaleón
Re: Paquete no Upgrade
On Wed May 1, 2024 at 2:50 AM -03, César Espino wrote: > Me pasa lo mismo, quiero ser paciente para que se arreglen. > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:48 AM Camaleón wrote: > > > El 2024-04-30 a las 10:40 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > > > > > El mar, 30 abr 2024 a las 10:35, Camaleón () > > escribió: > > > > (...) > > > > > > > > Te paso: > > > > > > > > > > > > me in ~ took 25s > > > > > > 00:19:22 ❯ sudo apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > > > > > Reading package lists... Done > > > > > > Building dependency tree... Done > > > > > > Reading state information... Done > > > > > > Calculating upgrade... Done > > > > > > The following packages have been kept back: > > > > > >libzvbi-common (0.2.42-1.1 => 0.2.42-2) > > > > > >0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded. > > > > > > > > > > La orden es: > > > > > > > > > > apt-get update && apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > > > > ^^ > > > > > > > > > > (actualiza siempre antes los repos/paquetes) > > > > > > > > Vale, ya veo lo que pasa, en mi tetsing me dice exactamente lo mismo > > > > (tengo 2 paquetes retenidos). > > > > > > > > Hay problemas de dependencias entre paquetes que no se pueden resolver > > > > por apt automáticamente, bien por error en el empaquetado o porque hay > > > > que esperar a que se actualicen los repos y se incorporen las nuevas > > > > dependencias. > > > > > > > > La orden que me ha dado la pista es: > > > > > > > > apt-get --with-new-pkgs upgrade libzvbi-common > > > > > > > > Hoy me ha actualizado *cientos* de paquetes, toca esperar. > > > > > > > > > > No estoy frente al equipo ahora, que te ha arrojado esa orden? > > > > > > apt-get --with-new-pkgs upgrade libzvbi-common > > > > Pues te dice que tiene problemas indirectos con 2 paquetes de VLC, que > > efectivamente sí están rotos (ahora mismo) en testing: > > > > 1. > > https://packages.debian.org/trixie/vlc-plugin-base > > > > dep: libaribb24-0 (>= 1.0.3) > > Package not available > > > > dep: libspatialaudio0 (>= 0.3.0+git20180730+dfsg1) > > Package not available > > > > dep: libzvbi0 (>= 0.2.35) > > Package not available > > > > 2. > > https://packages.debian.org/trixie/libavcodec60 > > dep: libzvbi0 (>= 0.2.35) > > Package not available > > > > > > Saludos, > > > > -- > > Camaleón > > > > A todo esto, está asentado en alguna web esto que está pasando? en tracker por ej? Por ej el paquete que a vos Camaleon te dice que no está disponible, no termino de entender la lógica de la web [1] [1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libspatialaudio
Re: recent Trixie upgrade removed nfs client
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 15:48:09 -0400
Gary Dale wrote:
Hello Gary,
>Yes but: both gdb and nfs-client installed fine. Moreover, the
>nfs-client doesn't appear to be a dependency of any of the massive load
>of files updated lately. The gdb package however is but for some
This transition is ongoing; Just because a package is uninstallable
today, doesn't mean the same will be true tomorrow. Sometimes,
dependencies transfer in the wrong order.
Minor point; nfs-client doesn't appear to exist in Debian. At least,
not according my search of https://packages.debian.org Closest packages I
could find are nfs-common or ndb-client.
>Shouldn't autoremove only offer to remove packages that used to be a
>dependency but aren't currently (i.e. their status has changed)?
There are lots of inter-dependant relationships (that I don't even
pretend to understand). It's not as simple as 'X doesn't depend on Y, so
it should not be removed'. There's (nearly) always other things going
on at such times as this. For example, it's not until today I could get
libllvmt64 to install, and replace, libllvm. For several days,
attempting the replacement would have ended up with broken packages, so
the upgrade was not allowed.
Sometimes, only upgrading a subset of the packages offered can help;
apt isn't perfect at resolving all the issues. Assuming the issues are
solvable in the first place. This is not a criticism of apt, because
aptitude and synaptic can have difficulties, too. Each tool has its
foibles.
On top of all that, I've found quite a few library packages don't
automatically migrate to their t64 counterpart. Whether that's by
accident or design, IDK. What I do know is that the act of installing
(manually) the t64 version will force the removal of the old version.
There's usually a 'complaint' about such an action (warning about
removing an in use library), but it proceeds without problems.
--
Regards _ "Valid sig separator is {dash}{dash}{space}"
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is never immediately apparent"
/ _)rad "Is it only me that has a working delete key?"
Two sides to every story
Public Image - Public Image Ltd
pgpKK8g09RESF.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Paquete no Upgrade
Me pasa lo mismo, quiero ser paciente para que se arreglen. On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:48 AM Camaleón wrote: > El 2024-04-30 a las 10:40 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > > > El mar, 30 abr 2024 a las 10:35, Camaleón () > escribió: > > (...) > > > > > > Te paso: > > > > > > > > > > me in ~ took 25s > > > > > 00:19:22 ❯ sudo apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > > > > Reading package lists... Done > > > > > Building dependency tree... Done > > > > > Reading state information... Done > > > > > Calculating upgrade... Done > > > > > The following packages have been kept back: > > > > >libzvbi-common (0.2.42-1.1 => 0.2.42-2) > > > > >0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded. > > > > > > > > La orden es: > > > > > > > > apt-get update && apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > > > ^^ > > > > > > > > (actualiza siempre antes los repos/paquetes) > > > > > > Vale, ya veo lo que pasa, en mi tetsing me dice exactamente lo mismo > > > (tengo 2 paquetes retenidos). > > > > > > Hay problemas de dependencias entre paquetes que no se pueden resolver > > > por apt automáticamente, bien por error en el empaquetado o porque hay > > > que esperar a que se actualicen los repos y se incorporen las nuevas > > > dependencias. > > > > > > La orden que me ha dado la pista es: > > > > > > apt-get --with-new-pkgs upgrade libzvbi-common > > > > > > Hoy me ha actualizado *cientos* de paquetes, toca esperar. > > > > > > > No estoy frente al equipo ahora, que te ha arrojado esa orden? > > > > apt-get --with-new-pkgs upgrade libzvbi-common > > Pues te dice que tiene problemas indirectos con 2 paquetes de VLC, que > efectivamente sí están rotos (ahora mismo) en testing: > > 1. > https://packages.debian.org/trixie/vlc-plugin-base > > dep: libaribb24-0 (>= 1.0.3) > Package not available > > dep: libspatialaudio0 (>= 0.3.0+git20180730+dfsg1) > Package not available > > dep: libzvbi0 (>= 0.2.35) > Package not available > > 2. > https://packages.debian.org/trixie/libavcodec60 > dep: libzvbi0 (>= 0.2.35) > Package not available > > > Saludos, > > -- > Camaleón > > -- http://www.riveonline.com
Re: recent Trixie upgrade removed nfs client
On 2024-04-30 10:58, Brad Rogers wrote: On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:51:01 -0400 Gary Dale wrote: Hello Gary, Not looking for a solution. Just reporting a spate of oddities I've encountered lately. As Erwan says, this is 'normal'. Especially ATM due to the t64 transition. As you've found out, paying attention to removals is a Good Idea(tm). Sometimes those removals cannot be avoided. Of course, removal of 'library' to be replaced with 'libraryt64' is absolutely fine. If the upgrade wants to remove (say) half of the base packages of KDE, waiting a few days would be prudent. :-D You may also notice quite a few packages being reported as "local or obsolete". This is expected as certain packages have had to be removed from testing to enable a smoother flow of the transition. Many will return in due course. I do know of one exception, however; deborphan has bee removed from testing and, as things stand, it looks like it might be permanent - I fully understand why, but I shall mourn its passing, as I find it to be quite handy for weeding out cruft. Yes but: both gdb and nfs-client installed fine. Moreover, the nfs-client doesn't appear to be a dependency of any of the massive load of files updated lately. The gdb package however is but for some reason apt didn't want to install it. The point is that apt didn't handle the situation reasonably. If it wanted a package that was installable, should it not have installed it? And while nfs-client isn't a dependency of other installed packages, why should autoremove remove it? It's status of not being a dependency didn't change. There are lots of packages that aren't depended on by other packages that I have installed (e.g. every end-user application). Shouldn't autoremove only offer to remove packages that used to be a dependency but aren't currently (i.e. their status has changed)?
Re: Paquete no Upgrade
El 2024-04-30 a las 10:40 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > El mar, 30 abr 2024 a las 10:35, Camaleón () escribió: (...) > > > > Te paso: > > > > > > > > me in ~ took 25s > > > > 00:19:22 ❯ sudo apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > > > Reading package lists... Done > > > > Building dependency tree... Done > > > > Reading state information... Done > > > > Calculating upgrade... Done > > > > The following packages have been kept back: > > > >libzvbi-common (0.2.42-1.1 => 0.2.42-2) > > > >0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded. > > > > > > La orden es: > > > > > > apt-get update && apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > > ^^ > > > > > > (actualiza siempre antes los repos/paquetes) > > > > Vale, ya veo lo que pasa, en mi tetsing me dice exactamente lo mismo > > (tengo 2 paquetes retenidos). > > > > Hay problemas de dependencias entre paquetes que no se pueden resolver > > por apt automáticamente, bien por error en el empaquetado o porque hay > > que esperar a que se actualicen los repos y se incorporen las nuevas > > dependencias. > > > > La orden que me ha dado la pista es: > > > > apt-get --with-new-pkgs upgrade libzvbi-common > > > > Hoy me ha actualizado *cientos* de paquetes, toca esperar. > > > > No estoy frente al equipo ahora, que te ha arrojado esa orden? > > apt-get --with-new-pkgs upgrade libzvbi-common Pues te dice que tiene problemas indirectos con 2 paquetes de VLC, que efectivamente sí están rotos (ahora mismo) en testing: 1. https://packages.debian.org/trixie/vlc-plugin-base dep: libaribb24-0 (>= 1.0.3) Package not available dep: libspatialaudio0 (>= 0.3.0+git20180730+dfsg1) Package not available dep: libzvbi0 (>= 0.2.35) Package not available 2. https://packages.debian.org/trixie/libavcodec60 dep: libzvbi0 (>= 0.2.35) Package not available Saludos, -- Camaleón
Re: recent Trixie upgrade removed nfs client
Gary Dale wrote: > I'm running Trixie on an AMD64 system. > > Yesterday after doing my usual morning full-upgrade, I rebooted because > there were a lot of Plasma-related updates. When I logged in, I found I > wasn't connected to my file server shares. I eventually traced this down > to a lack of nfs software on my workstation. Reinstalling nfs-client > fixed this. > > I guess I need to pay closer attention to what autoremove tells me it's > going to remove, but I'm confused as to why it would remove nfs-client & > related packages. > > This follows a couple of previous full-upgrades that were having > problems. The first, a few days ago, was stopped by gdb not being > available. However, it installed fine manually (apt install gdb). I > don't see why apt full-upgrade didn't do this automatically as a > dependency for whatever package needed it. > > The second was blocked by the lack of a lcl-qt5 or lcl-gtk5 library. I > can see this as legitimate because it looks like you don't need both so > the package manager lets you decide which you want. > > Not looking for a solution. Just reporting a spate of oddities I've > encountered lately. the on-going time_t transitions may be causing some packages to be removed for a while as dependencies get adjusted. i've currently not been doing full upgrades because there are many Mate packages that would be removed. songbird
Re: recent Trixie upgrade removed nfs client
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:51:01 -0400
Gary Dale wrote:
Hello Gary,
>Not looking for a solution. Just reporting a spate of oddities I've
>encountered lately.
As Erwan says, this is 'normal'. Especially ATM due to the t64
transition.
As you've found out, paying attention to removals is a Good Idea(tm).
Sometimes those removals cannot be avoided. Of course, removal of
'library' to be replaced with 'libraryt64' is absolutely fine.
If the upgrade wants to remove (say) half of the base packages of KDE,
waiting a few days would be prudent. :-D
You may also notice quite a few packages being reported as "local or
obsolete". This is expected as certain packages have had to be removed
from testing to enable a smoother flow of the transition. Many will
return in due course. I do know of one exception, however; deborphan
has bee removed from testing and, as things stand, it looks like it
might be permanent - I fully understand why, but I shall mourn its
passing, as I find it to be quite handy for weeding out cruft.
--
Regards _ "Valid sig separator is {dash}{dash}{space}"
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is never immediately apparent"
/ _)rad "Is it only me that has a working delete key?"
He looked the wrong way at a policeman
I Predict A Riot - Kaiser Chiefs
pgpNgF_iNx5wu.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: recent Trixie upgrade removed nfs client
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 03:51:01PM CEST, Gary Dale said: > I'm running Trixie on an AMD64 system. > > Yesterday after doing my usual morning full-upgrade, I rebooted because > there were a lot of Plasma-related updates. When I logged in, I found I > wasn't connected to my file server shares. I eventually traced this down to > a lack of nfs software on my workstation. Reinstalling nfs-client fixed > this. > > I guess I need to pay closer attention to what autoremove tells me it's > going to remove, but I'm confused as to why it would remove nfs-client & > related packages. > > This follows a couple of previous full-upgrades that were having problems. > The first, a few days ago, was stopped by gdb not being available. However, > it installed fine manually (apt install gdb). I don't see why apt > full-upgrade didn't do this automatically as a dependency for whatever > package needed it. > > The second was blocked by the lack of a lcl-qt5 or lcl-gtk5 library. I can > see this as legitimate because it looks like you don't need both so the > package manager lets you decide which you want. > > Not looking for a solution. Just reporting a spate of oddities I've > encountered lately. > Trixie is undergoing major transitions. You must be careful and check what each upgrade will want to uninstall, but it is normal for a "testing" distribution. In those cases I use the curses interface of aptitude to check which upgrade will remove another package that I want, and limit my upgrades to the one that do not break my system. Usually some days later it is Ok (sometimes week for major transitions) -- Erwan
recent Trixie upgrade removed nfs client
I'm running Trixie on an AMD64 system. Yesterday after doing my usual morning full-upgrade, I rebooted because there were a lot of Plasma-related updates. When I logged in, I found I wasn't connected to my file server shares. I eventually traced this down to a lack of nfs software on my workstation. Reinstalling nfs-client fixed this. I guess I need to pay closer attention to what autoremove tells me it's going to remove, but I'm confused as to why it would remove nfs-client & related packages. This follows a couple of previous full-upgrades that were having problems. The first, a few days ago, was stopped by gdb not being available. However, it installed fine manually (apt install gdb). I don't see why apt full-upgrade didn't do this automatically as a dependency for whatever package needed it. The second was blocked by the lack of a lcl-qt5 or lcl-gtk5 library. I can see this as legitimate because it looks like you don't need both so the package manager lets you decide which you want. Not looking for a solution. Just reporting a spate of oddities I've encountered lately.
Re: Paquete no Upgrade
El mar, 30 abr 2024 a las 10:35, Camaleón () escribió: > > El 2024-04-30 a las 11:53 +0200, Camaleón escribió: > > > El 2024-04-30 a las 00:20 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > > > > > On Mon Apr 29, 2024 at 3:25 AM -03, Camaleón wrote: > > > > (...) > > > > > > > > > 23:48:32 ❯ sudo apt update > > > > > > > Hit:1 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing InRelease > > > > > > > Hit:2 http://security.debian.org/debian-security testing-security > > > > > > > InRelease > > > > > > > Hit:4 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing-updates InRelease > > > > > > > Fetched 2436 B in 2s (1414 B/s) > > > > > > > 1 package can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see it. > > > > > > > > (...) > > > > > > > > (...) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ejecuta un «dist-upgrade» o «full-upgrade», parece que no eres el > > > > > > único > > > > > > que experimenta ese problema: > > > > > > > > > > > > [Testing - Trixie] Why some packages are not upgraded? > > > > > > https://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=159016 > > > > > > > > > > ya pase por ese hilo, nada que me colabore para mi caso.... > > > > > > > > Qué raro :-? > > > > > > > > Manda a la lista la salida de esta orden: > > > > > > > > apt-get update && apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > > > > > > > Saludos, > > > > > > Te paso: > > > > > > me in ~ took 25s > > > 00:19:22 ❯ sudo apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > > Reading package lists... Done > > > Building dependency tree... Done > > > Reading state information... Done > > > Calculating upgrade... Done > > > The following packages have been kept back: > > >libzvbi-common (0.2.42-1.1 => 0.2.42-2) > > >0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded. > > > > La orden es: > > > > apt-get update && apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > ^^ > > > > (actualiza siempre antes los repos/paquetes) > > Vale, ya veo lo que pasa, en mi tetsing me dice exactamente lo mismo > (tengo 2 paquetes retenidos). > > Hay problemas de dependencias entre paquetes que no se pueden resolver > por apt automáticamente, bien por error en el empaquetado o porque hay > que esperar a que se actualicen los repos y se incorporen las nuevas > dependencias. > > La orden que me ha dado la pista es: > > apt-get --with-new-pkgs upgrade libzvbi-common > > Hoy me ha actualizado *cientos* de paquetes, toca esperar. > > Saludos, > > -- > Camaleón > No estoy frente al equipo ahora, que te ha arrojado esa orden? apt-get --with-new-pkgs upgrade libzvbi-common
Re: Paquete no Upgrade
El 2024-04-30 a las 11:53 +0200, Camaleón escribió: > El 2024-04-30 a las 00:20 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > > > On Mon Apr 29, 2024 at 3:25 AM -03, Camaleón wrote: > > (...) > > > > > > > 23:48:32 ❯ sudo apt update > > > > > > Hit:1 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing InRelease > > > > > > Hit:2 http://security.debian.org/debian-security testing-security > > > > > > InRelease > > > > > > Hit:4 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing-updates InRelease > > > > > > Fetched 2436 B in 2s (1414 B/s) > > > > > > 1 package can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see it. > > > > > > (...) > > > > > (...) > > > > > > > > > > > Ejecuta un «dist-upgrade» o «full-upgrade», parece que no eres el > > > > > único > > > > > que experimenta ese problema: > > > > > > > > > > [Testing - Trixie] Why some packages are not upgraded? > > > > > https://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=159016 > > > > > > > > ya pase por ese hilo, nada que me colabore para mi caso > > > > > > Qué raro :-? > > > > > > Manda a la lista la salida de esta orden: > > > > > > apt-get update && apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > > > > > Saludos, > > > > Te paso: > > > > me in ~ took 25s > > 00:19:22 ❯ sudo apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > Reading package lists... Done > > Building dependency tree... Done > > Reading state information... Done > > Calculating upgrade... Done > > The following packages have been kept back: > >libzvbi-common (0.2.42-1.1 => 0.2.42-2) > >0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded. > > La orden es: > > apt-get update && apt-get -V dist-upgrade > ^^ > > (actualiza siempre antes los repos/paquetes) Vale, ya veo lo que pasa, en mi tetsing me dice exactamente lo mismo (tengo 2 paquetes retenidos). Hay problemas de dependencias entre paquetes que no se pueden resolver por apt automáticamente, bien por error en el empaquetado o porque hay que esperar a que se actualicen los repos y se incorporen las nuevas dependencias. La orden que me ha dado la pista es: apt-get --with-new-pkgs upgrade libzvbi-common Hoy me ha actualizado *cientos* de paquetes, toca esperar. Saludos, -- Camaleón
Re: Paquete no Upgrade
El mar., 30 de abril de 2024 8:33 a. m., Camaleón escribió: > El 2024-04-30 a las 00:20 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > > > On Mon Apr 29, 2024 at 3:25 AM -03, Camaleón wrote: > > (...) > > > > > > > 23:48:32 ❯ sudo apt update > > > > > > Hit:1 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing InRelease > > > > > > Hit:2 http://security.debian.org/debian-security > testing-security InRelease > > > > > > Hit:4 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing-updates InRelease > > > > > > Fetched 2436 B in 2s (1414 B/s) > > > > > > 1 package can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see it. > > > > > > (...) > > > > > (...) > > > > > > > > > > > Ejecuta un «dist-upgrade» o «full-upgrade», parece que no eres el > único > > > > > que experimenta ese problema: > > > > > > > > > > [Testing - Trixie] Why some packages are not upgraded? > > > > > https://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=159016 > > > > > > > > ya pase por ese hilo, nada que me colabore para mi caso > > > > > > Qué raro :-? > > > > > > Manda a la lista la salida de esta orden: > > > > > > apt-get update && apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > > > > > Saludos, > > > > Te paso: > > > > me in ~ took 25s > > 00:19:22 ❯ sudo apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > Reading package lists... Done > > Building dependency tree... Done > > Reading state information... Done > > Calculating upgrade... Done > > The following packages have been kept back: > >libzvbi-common (0.2.42-1.1 => 0.2.42-2) > >0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded. > > La orden es: > > apt-get update && apt-get -V dist-upgrade > ^^ > > (actualiza siempre antes los repos/paquetes) > > Saludos, > > -- > Camaleó > Me extraña araña claro que hice antes un apt update >
Re: Paquete no Upgrade
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:20:12 -0300 "N4ch0" wrote: > On Mon Apr 29, 2024 at 3:25 AM -03, Camaleón wrote: > > El 2024-04-28 a las 14:37 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > > > > > On Sun Apr 28, 2024 at 4:20 AM -03, Camaleón wrote: > > > > El 2024-04-27 a las 23:51 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > > > > > > > > > hola! Estoy en testing y tengo el siguiente tema: > > > > (...) > > > > > > > 23:48:32 ❯ sudo apt update > > > > > Hit:1 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing InRelease > > > > > Hit:2 http://security.debian.org/debian-security testing-security > > > > > InRelease > > > > > Hit:4 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing-updates InRelease > > > > > Fetched 2436 B in 2s (1414 B/s) > > > > > 1 package can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see it. > > > > (...) > > > > > > > 23:49:11 ❯ sudo apt dist-upgrade > > > > > Not upgrading: > > > > > libzvbi-common > > > > > > > > > > Summary: > > > > > Upgrading: 0, Installing: 0, Removing: 0, Not Upgrading: 1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alguna vez me ocurre que hay paquetes que tengo que darle a > > > > > dist-upgrade > > > > > pero este no es el caso. > > > > > > > > > > No termino de entende que pasa. > > > > > > > > > > Alguien que pueda orientarme? > > > > > > > > Pues tampoco veo por qué no lo actualiza :-? > > > > > > > > Normalmente, en testing y cuando hace mucho tiempo que no has > > > > actualizado, suele pasar lo que comentas por problemas de dependencias > > > > pero no parece ser éste el caso, ya que se trata de un único paquete. > > > > > > > > > > Exacto no es el caso, ni full-upgrade soluciona > > > > > > > > Gracias! > > > > > > > > (marchando un buceo por Goglee) > > > > > > > > Ejecuta un «dist-upgrade» o «full-upgrade», parece que no eres el único > > > > que experimenta ese problema: > > > > > > > > [Testing - Trixie] Why some packages are not upgraded? > > > > https://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=159016 > > > > > > ya pase por ese hilo, nada que me colabore para mi caso > > > > Qué raro :-? > > > > Manda a la lista la salida de esta orden: > > > > apt-get update && apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > > > Saludos, > > Te paso: > > me in ~ took 25s > 00:19:22 ❯ sudo apt-get -V dist-upgrade > Reading package lists... Done > Building dependency tree... Done > Reading state information... Done > Calculating upgrade... Done > The following packages have been kept back: >libzvbi-common (0.2.42-1.1 => 0.2.42-2) >0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded. > > > NO se si ya te lo han recomendado por aquí, pero yo en estos casos lo que hago es quitar ese paquete (no creo que te perjudique en gran medida durante un rato), actualizas lo que tengas que actualizar y luego vuelves a instalar ese paquete si es que lo crees importante (es un paquete del entorno gráfico así que si haces todo el trabajo en las consoloas puras pues menos sustos te llevarás). -- hubble
Re: Paquete no Upgrade
El mar., 30 de abril de 2024 2:17 a. m., Leo Marín escribió: > > > El mar, 30 abr 2024 a las 0:38, N4ch0 () escribió: > >> On Mon Apr 29, 2024 at 3:25 AM -03, Camaleón wrote: >> > El 2024-04-28 a las 14:37 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: >> > >> > > On Sun Apr 28, 2024 at 4:20 AM -03, Camaleón wrote: >> > > > El 2024-04-27 a las 23:51 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: >> > > > >> > > > > hola! Estoy en testing y tengo el siguiente tema: >> > >> > (...) >> > >> > > > > 23:48:32 ❯ sudo apt update >> > > > > Hit:1 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing InRelease >> > > > > Hit:2 http://security.debian.org/debian-security >> testing-security InRelease >> > > > > Hit:4 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing-updates InRelease >> > > > > Fetched 2436 B in 2s (1414 B/s) >> > > > > 1 package can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see it. >> > tengo testing con kde y el mismo problema con el paquete, por lo menos ya > se puede actualizar, hace un par de días intentaba y queria desinstalar kde > entero. > > >> > >> > (...) >> > >> > > > > 23:49:11 ❯ sudo apt dist-upgrade >> > > > > Not upgrading: >> > > > > libzvbi-common >> > > > > >> > > > > Summary: >> > > > > Upgrading: 0, Installing: 0, Removing: 0, Not Upgrading: 1 >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Alguna vez me ocurre que hay paquetes que tengo que darle a >> dist-upgrade >> > > > > pero este no es el caso. >> > > > > >> > > > > No termino de entende que pasa. >> > > > > >> > > > > Alguien que pueda orientarme? >> > > > >> > > > Pues tampoco veo por qué no lo actualiza :-? >> > > > >> > > > Normalmente, en testing y cuando hace mucho tiempo que no has >> > > > actualizado, suele pasar lo que comentas por problemas de >> dependencias >> > > > pero no parece ser éste el caso, ya que se trata de un único >> paquete. >> > > > >> > > >> > > Exacto no es el caso, ni full-upgrade soluciona >> > > >> > > > > Gracias! >> > > > >> > > > (marchando un buceo por Goglee) >> > > > >> > > > Ejecuta un «dist-upgrade» o «full-upgrade», parece que no eres el >> único >> > > > que experimenta ese problema: >> > > > >> > > > [Testing - Trixie] Why some packages are not upgraded? >> > > > https://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=159016 >> > > >> > > ya pase por ese hilo, nada que me colabore para mi caso >> > >> > Qué raro :-? >> > >> > Manda a la lista la salida de esta orden: >> > >> > apt-get update && apt-get -V dist-upgrade >> > >> > Saludos, >> >> Te paso: >> >> me in ~ took 25s >> 00:19:22 ❯ sudo apt-get -V dist-upgrade >> Reading package lists... Done >> Building dependency tree... Done >> Reading state information... Done >> Calculating upgrade... Done >> The following packages have been kept back: >>libzvbi-common (0.2.42-1.1 => 0.2.42-2) >>0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded. >> >> >> >> > > -- > L.J.Marín > Usando: Debian Testing > A mi me seguía igual pero lo resolví de una manera que no le agrada: 1) desinstalé el paquete en cuestión tomando nota** de todo lo que se iba con él (aún no tuvieran que ver con dicho paquete) 2) instale de vuelta el paquete en cuestión 3) instale los paquetes ** >
Re: Paquete no Upgrade
El 2024-04-30 a las 00:20 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > On Mon Apr 29, 2024 at 3:25 AM -03, Camaleón wrote: (...) > > > > > 23:48:32 ❯ sudo apt update > > > > > Hit:1 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing InRelease > > > > > Hit:2 http://security.debian.org/debian-security testing-security > > > > > InRelease > > > > > Hit:4 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing-updates InRelease > > > > > Fetched 2436 B in 2s (1414 B/s) > > > > > 1 package can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see it. > > > > (...) > > (...) > > > > > > > > Ejecuta un «dist-upgrade» o «full-upgrade», parece que no eres el único > > > > que experimenta ese problema: > > > > > > > > [Testing - Trixie] Why some packages are not upgraded? > > > > https://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=159016 > > > > > > ya pase por ese hilo, nada que me colabore para mi caso > > > > Qué raro :-? > > > > Manda a la lista la salida de esta orden: > > > > apt-get update && apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > > > Saludos, > > Te paso: > > me in ~ took 25s > 00:19:22 ❯ sudo apt-get -V dist-upgrade > Reading package lists... Done > Building dependency tree... Done > Reading state information... Done > Calculating upgrade... Done > The following packages have been kept back: >libzvbi-common (0.2.42-1.1 => 0.2.42-2) >0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded. La orden es: apt-get update && apt-get -V dist-upgrade ^^ (actualiza siempre antes los repos/paquetes) Saludos, -- Camaleón
Re: Paquete no Upgrade
El mar, 30 abr 2024 a las 0:38, N4ch0 () escribió: > On Mon Apr 29, 2024 at 3:25 AM -03, Camaleón wrote: > > El 2024-04-28 a las 14:37 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > > > > > On Sun Apr 28, 2024 at 4:20 AM -03, Camaleón wrote: > > > > El 2024-04-27 a las 23:51 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > > > > > > > > > hola! Estoy en testing y tengo el siguiente tema: > > > > (...) > > > > > > > 23:48:32 ❯ sudo apt update > > > > > Hit:1 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing InRelease > > > > > Hit:2 http://security.debian.org/debian-security testing-security > InRelease > > > > > Hit:4 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing-updates InRelease > > > > > Fetched 2436 B in 2s (1414 B/s) > > > > > 1 package can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see it. > tengo testing con kde y el mismo problema con el paquete, por lo menos ya se puede actualizar, hace un par de días intentaba y queria desinstalar kde entero. > > > > (...) > > > > > > > 23:49:11 ❯ sudo apt dist-upgrade > > > > > Not upgrading: > > > > > libzvbi-common > > > > > > > > > > Summary: > > > > > Upgrading: 0, Installing: 0, Removing: 0, Not Upgrading: 1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alguna vez me ocurre que hay paquetes que tengo que darle a > dist-upgrade > > > > > pero este no es el caso. > > > > > > > > > > No termino de entende que pasa. > > > > > > > > > > Alguien que pueda orientarme? > > > > > > > > Pues tampoco veo por qué no lo actualiza :-? > > > > > > > > Normalmente, en testing y cuando hace mucho tiempo que no has > > > > actualizado, suele pasar lo que comentas por problemas de > dependencias > > > > pero no parece ser éste el caso, ya que se trata de un único paquete. > > > > > > > > > > Exacto no es el caso, ni full-upgrade soluciona > > > > > > > > Gracias! > > > > > > > > (marchando un buceo por Goglee) > > > > > > > > Ejecuta un «dist-upgrade» o «full-upgrade», parece que no eres el > único > > > > que experimenta ese problema: > > > > > > > > [Testing - Trixie] Why some packages are not upgraded? > > > > https://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=159016 > > > > > > ya pase por ese hilo, nada que me colabore para mi caso > > > > Qué raro :-? > > > > Manda a la lista la salida de esta orden: > > > > apt-get update && apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > > > Saludos, > > Te paso: > > me in ~ took 25s > 00:19:22 ❯ sudo apt-get -V dist-upgrade > Reading package lists... Done > Building dependency tree... Done > Reading state information... Done > Calculating upgrade... Done > The following packages have been kept back: >libzvbi-common (0.2.42-1.1 => 0.2.42-2) >0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded. > > > > -- L.J.Marín Usando: Debian Testing
Re: Paquete no Upgrade
On Mon Apr 29, 2024 at 3:25 AM -03, Camaleón wrote: > El 2024-04-28 a las 14:37 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > > > On Sun Apr 28, 2024 at 4:20 AM -03, Camaleón wrote: > > > El 2024-04-27 a las 23:51 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > > > > > > > hola! Estoy en testing y tengo el siguiente tema: > > (...) > > > > > 23:48:32 ❯ sudo apt update > > > > Hit:1 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing InRelease > > > > Hit:2 http://security.debian.org/debian-security testing-security > > > > InRelease > > > > Hit:4 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing-updates InRelease > > > > Fetched 2436 B in 2s (1414 B/s) > > > > 1 package can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see it. > > (...) > > > > > 23:49:11 ❯ sudo apt dist-upgrade > > > > Not upgrading: > > > > libzvbi-common > > > > > > > > Summary: > > > > Upgrading: 0, Installing: 0, Removing: 0, Not Upgrading: 1 > > > > > > > > > > > > Alguna vez me ocurre que hay paquetes que tengo que darle a dist-upgrade > > > > pero este no es el caso. > > > > > > > > No termino de entende que pasa. > > > > > > > > Alguien que pueda orientarme? > > > > > > Pues tampoco veo por qué no lo actualiza :-? > > > > > > Normalmente, en testing y cuando hace mucho tiempo que no has > > > actualizado, suele pasar lo que comentas por problemas de dependencias > > > pero no parece ser éste el caso, ya que se trata de un único paquete. > > > > > > > Exacto no es el caso, ni full-upgrade soluciona > > > > > > Gracias! > > > > > > (marchando un buceo por Goglee) > > > > > > Ejecuta un «dist-upgrade» o «full-upgrade», parece que no eres el único > > > que experimenta ese problema: > > > > > > [Testing - Trixie] Why some packages are not upgraded? > > > https://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=159016 > > > > ya pase por ese hilo, nada que me colabore para mi caso > > Qué raro :-? > > Manda a la lista la salida de esta orden: > > apt-get update && apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > Saludos, Te paso: me in ~ took 25s 00:19:22 ❯ sudo apt-get -V dist-upgrade Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Reading state information... Done Calculating upgrade... Done The following packages have been kept back: libzvbi-common (0.2.42-1.1 => 0.2.42-2) 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
Re: Paquete no Upgrade
El lun., 29 de abril de 2024 3:26 a. m., Camaleón escribió: > El 2024-04-28 a las 14:37 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > > > On Sun Apr 28, 2024 at 4:20 AM -03, Camaleón wrote: > > > El 2024-04-27 a las 23:51 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > > > > > > > hola! Estoy en testing y tengo el siguiente tema: > > (...) > > > > > 23:48:32 ❯ sudo apt update > > > > Hit:1 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing InRelease > > > > Hit:2 http://security.debian.org/debian-security testing-security > InRelease > > > > Hit:4 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing-updates InRelease > > > > Fetched 2436 B in 2s (1414 B/s) > > > > 1 package can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see it. > > (...) > > > > > 23:49:11 ❯ sudo apt dist-upgrade > > > > Not upgrading: > > > > libzvbi-common > > > > > > > > Summary: > > > > Upgrading: 0, Installing: 0, Removing: 0, Not Upgrading: 1 > > > > > > > > > > > > Alguna vez me ocurre que hay paquetes que tengo que darle a > dist-upgrade > > > > pero este no es el caso. > > > > > > > > No termino de entende que pasa. > > > > > > > > Alguien que pueda orientarme? > > > > > > Pues tampoco veo por qué no lo actualiza :-? > > > > > > Normalmente, en testing y cuando hace mucho tiempo que no has > > > actualizado, suele pasar lo que comentas por problemas de dependencias > > > pero no parece ser éste el caso, ya que se trata de un único paquete. > > > > > > > Exacto no es el caso, ni full-upgrade soluciona > > > > > > Gracias! > > > > > > (marchando un buceo por Goglee) > > > > > > Ejecuta un «dist-upgrade» o «full-upgrade», parece que no eres el > único > > > que experimenta ese problema: > > > > > > [Testing - Trixie] Why some packages are not upgraded? > > > https://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=159016 > > > > ya pase por ese hilo, nada que me colabore para mi caso > > Qué raro :-? > > Manda a la lista la salida de esta orden: > > apt-get update && apt-get -V dist-upgrade > > Saludos, > > -- > Camaleón > Cuando esté frente al equipo envío la salida >
Re: Paquete no Upgrade
El 2024-04-28 a las 14:37 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > On Sun Apr 28, 2024 at 4:20 AM -03, Camaleón wrote: > > El 2024-04-27 a las 23:51 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > > > > > hola! Estoy en testing y tengo el siguiente tema: (...) > > > 23:48:32 ❯ sudo apt update > > > Hit:1 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing InRelease > > > Hit:2 http://security.debian.org/debian-security testing-security > > > InRelease > > > Hit:4 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing-updates InRelease > > > Fetched 2436 B in 2s (1414 B/s) > > > 1 package can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see it. (...) > > > 23:49:11 ❯ sudo apt dist-upgrade > > > Not upgrading: > > > libzvbi-common > > > > > > Summary: > > > Upgrading: 0, Installing: 0, Removing: 0, Not Upgrading: 1 > > > > > > > > > Alguna vez me ocurre que hay paquetes que tengo que darle a dist-upgrade > > > pero este no es el caso. > > > > > > No termino de entende que pasa. > > > > > > Alguien que pueda orientarme? > > > > Pues tampoco veo por qué no lo actualiza :-? > > > > Normalmente, en testing y cuando hace mucho tiempo que no has > > actualizado, suele pasar lo que comentas por problemas de dependencias > > pero no parece ser éste el caso, ya que se trata de un único paquete. > > > > Exacto no es el caso, ni full-upgrade soluciona > > > > Gracias! > > > > (marchando un buceo por Goglee) > > > > Ejecuta un «dist-upgrade» o «full-upgrade», parece que no eres el único > > que experimenta ese problema: > > > > [Testing - Trixie] Why some packages are not upgraded? > > https://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=159016 > > ya pase por ese hilo, nada que me colabore para mi caso Qué raro :-? Manda a la lista la salida de esta orden: apt-get update && apt-get -V dist-upgrade Saludos, -- Camaleón
Re: Paquete no Upgrade
On Sun Apr 28, 2024 at 7:57 AM -03, Listas wrote: > El sáb, 27-04-2024 a las 23:51 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > > hola! Estoy en testing y tengo el siguiente tema: > > > > > ... > ... > > > Summary: > > Upgrading: 0, Installing: 0, Removing: 0, Not Upgrading: 1 > > > > - > > --- > > > > Alguna vez me ocurre que hay paquetes que tengo que darle a dist- > > upgrade > > pero este no es el caso. > > > > No termino de entende que pasa. > > > > Alguien que pueda orientarme? > > Con la actualización del viernes hubo bastante lío, a mi me quiere > eliminar todo Gnome... dicen que ya está resuelto: > > https://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=159035 > > Simplemente cuestión de esperar y volver a actualizar para ver si no se > queja. > > Un saludo En mi caso sigo igual, veo que en ese hilo hace referencia a otro que está el paquete con el que estoy teniendo problemas, voy a seguir revisando. Gracias!
Re: Paquete no Upgrade
On Sun Apr 28, 2024 at 4:20 AM -03, Camaleón wrote: > El 2024-04-27 a las 23:51 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > > > hola! Estoy en testing y tengo el siguiente tema: > > > > > > me in ~ took 20s > > 23:48:32 ❯ sudo apt update > > Hit:1 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing InRelease > > Hit:2 http://security.debian.org/debian-security testing-security InRelease > > Hit:4 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing-updates InRelease > > Fetched 2436 B in 2s (1414 B/s) > > 1 package can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see it. > > > > me in ~ > > 23:48:45 ❯ sudo apt list --upgradable > > libzvbi-common/testing,testing 0.2.42-2 all [upgradable from: 0.2.42-1.1] > > Notice: There is 1 additional version. Please use the '-a' switch to see it > > > > me in ~ > > 23:48:58 ❯ sudo apt list --upgradable -a > > libzvbi-common/testing,testing 0.2.42-2 all [upgradable from: 0.2.42-1.1] > > libzvbi-common/now 0.2.42-1.1 all [installed,upgradable to: 0.2.42-2] > > > > > > me in ~ > > 23:49:01 ❯ sudo apt upgrade > > Not upgrading: > > libzvbi-common > > > > Summary: > > Upgrading: 0, Installing: 0, Removing: 0, Not Upgrading: 1 > > > > me in ~ > > 23:49:11 ❯ sudo apt dist-upgrade > > Not upgrading: > > libzvbi-common > > > > Summary: > > Upgrading: 0, Installing: 0, Removing: 0, Not Upgrading: 1 > > > > > > > > Alguna vez me ocurre que hay paquetes que tengo que darle a dist-upgrade > > pero este no es el caso. > > > > No termino de entende que pasa. > > > > Alguien que pueda orientarme? > > Pues tampoco veo por qué no lo actualiza :-? > > Normalmente, en testing y cuando hace mucho tiempo que no has > actualizado, suele pasar lo que comentas por problemas de dependencias > pero no parece ser éste el caso, ya que se trata de un único paquete. > Exacto no es el caso, ni full-upgrade soluciona > > Gracias! > > (marchando un buceo por Goglee) > > Ejecuta un «dist-upgrade» o «full-upgrade», parece que no eres el único > que experimenta ese problema: > > [Testing - Trixie] Why some packages are not upgraded? > https://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=159016 ya pase por ese hilo, nada que me colabore para mi caso > > Saludos,
Re: Subject: Glitchy sound in Steam games after hard drive upgrade
On 2024-04-22, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > > TL;DR: Copying an existing /home into a fresh Debian installation > causes audio in Steam games to glitch - but all other sound is OK. I have only the most vaporous ideas about Steam, but have you tried backing up and then recreating (if such a thing is possible) your user profile ~/.steam or ~/.config/steam files?
Re: Paquete no Upgrade
El sáb, 27-04-2024 a las 23:51 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > hola! Estoy en testing y tengo el siguiente tema: > > ... ... > Summary: > Upgrading: 0, Installing: 0, Removing: 0, Not Upgrading: 1 > > - > --- > > Alguna vez me ocurre que hay paquetes que tengo que darle a dist- > upgrade > pero este no es el caso. > > No termino de entende que pasa. > > Alguien que pueda orientarme? Con la actualización del viernes hubo bastante lío, a mi me quiere eliminar todo Gnome... dicen que ya está resuelto: https://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=159035 Simplemente cuestión de esperar y volver a actualizar para ver si no se queja. Un saludo
Re: Paquete no Upgrade
El 2024-04-27 a las 23:51 -0300, N4ch0 escribió: > hola! Estoy en testing y tengo el siguiente tema: > > > me in ~ took 20s > 23:48:32 ❯ sudo apt update > Hit:1 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing InRelease > Hit:2 http://security.debian.org/debian-security testing-security InRelease > Hit:4 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing-updates InRelease > Fetched 2436 B in 2s (1414 B/s) > 1 package can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see it. > > me in ~ > 23:48:45 ❯ sudo apt list --upgradable > libzvbi-common/testing,testing 0.2.42-2 all [upgradable from: 0.2.42-1.1] > Notice: There is 1 additional version. Please use the '-a' switch to see it > > me in ~ > 23:48:58 ❯ sudo apt list --upgradable -a > libzvbi-common/testing,testing 0.2.42-2 all [upgradable from: 0.2.42-1.1] > libzvbi-common/now 0.2.42-1.1 all [installed,upgradable to: 0.2.42-2] > > > me in ~ > 23:49:01 ❯ sudo apt upgrade > Not upgrading: > libzvbi-common > > Summary: > Upgrading: 0, Installing: 0, Removing: 0, Not Upgrading: 1 > > me in ~ > 23:49:11 ❯ sudo apt dist-upgrade > Not upgrading: > libzvbi-common > > Summary: > Upgrading: 0, Installing: 0, Removing: 0, Not Upgrading: 1 > > -------- > > Alguna vez me ocurre que hay paquetes que tengo que darle a dist-upgrade > pero este no es el caso. > > No termino de entende que pasa. > > Alguien que pueda orientarme? Pues tampoco veo por qué no lo actualiza :-? Normalmente, en testing y cuando hace mucho tiempo que no has actualizado, suele pasar lo que comentas por problemas de dependencias pero no parece ser éste el caso, ya que se trata de un único paquete. > Gracias! (marchando un buceo por Goglee) Ejecuta un «dist-upgrade» o «full-upgrade», parece que no eres el único que experimenta ese problema: [Testing - Trixie] Why some packages are not upgraded? https://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=159016 Saludos, -- Camaleón
Paquete no Upgrade
hola! Estoy en testing y tengo el siguiente tema: me in ~ took 20s 23:48:32 ❯ sudo apt update Hit:1 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing InRelease Hit:2 http://security.debian.org/debian-security testing-security InRelease Hit:4 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing-updates InRelease Fetched 2436 B in 2s (1414 B/s) 1 package can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see it. me in ~ 23:48:45 ❯ sudo apt list --upgradable libzvbi-common/testing,testing 0.2.42-2 all [upgradable from: 0.2.42-1.1] Notice: There is 1 additional version. Please use the '-a' switch to see it me in ~ 23:48:58 ❯ sudo apt list --upgradable -a libzvbi-common/testing,testing 0.2.42-2 all [upgradable from: 0.2.42-1.1] libzvbi-common/now 0.2.42-1.1 all [installed,upgradable to: 0.2.42-2] me in ~ 23:49:01 ❯ sudo apt upgrade Not upgrading: libzvbi-common Summary: Upgrading: 0, Installing: 0, Removing: 0, Not Upgrading: 1 me in ~ 23:49:11 ❯ sudo apt dist-upgrade Not upgrading: libzvbi-common Summary: Upgrading: 0, Installing: 0, Removing: 0, Not Upgrading: 1 Alguna vez me ocurre que hay paquetes que tengo que darle a dist-upgrade pero este no es el caso. No termino de entende que pasa. Alguien que pueda orientarme? Gracias!
Re: SOLVED: Re: Glitchy sound in Steam games after hard drive upgrade
On 4/24/24 00:46, Charlie Gibbs wrote: On 2024-04-22 16:50, Jeffrey Walton wrote: What are the old and new hard drive model numbers and specs? Correction: the 4TB drive is a Western Digital WD40EFPX. I was reading it by shining a flashlight through a gap in the frame and squinting from a wide angle because I didn't want to take the box apart yet again. Note for the future: hdparm -i can give you that info. If you think that's changed since boot, hdparm -I reads it from the drive.
SOLVED: Re: Glitchy sound in Steam games after hard drive upgrade
On 2024-04-22 16:50, Jeffrey Walton wrote: What are the old and new hard drive model numbers and specs? Correction: the 4TB drive is a Western Digital WD40EFPX. I was reading it by shining a flashlight through a gap in the frame and squinting from a wide angle because I didn't want to take the box apart yet again. I've trying several of the suggestions people have kindly posted here. The /etc directory on the new drive was getting messed up badly enough that I decided to try copying the 500GB drive's root partition to the 4TB drive using dd. The machine hung partway through the subsequent boot. So I wiped the root partition and re-installed Debian from scratch, leaving the /home partition intact. But the real magic was the re-installation of the Steam launcher. Since my Portal icons were on my desktop, and clicking them made it run (sort of), I was fooled into thinking everything was still there. But I found a detailed set of instructions for installing Steam at https://wiki.debian.org/Steam and followed them. This installed or overlaid the missing or broken parts and presto! my sound is now clean. Many thanks to everyone for your help. This a good lesson to not take too many things for granted, and also to be a bit more adventurous. (A full Debian re-install really doesn't take that long...) -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | You can't save the earth \ /| unless you're willing to X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | make other people sacrifice. / \ if you read it the right way. |-- Dogbert the green consultant
Re: Subject: Glitchy sound in Steam games after hard drive upgrade
> I doubt the new drive is slower than the old drive: Overall, agreed. Tho AFAICT the new drive spins slower (5400rpm vs 7200rpm), so it has a slightly higher rotational latency. This means that in *some* cases it can be slower. Now, I have no idea whether that's the cause of the glitches. Stefan
Re: Subject: Glitchy sound in Steam games after hard drive upgrade
On 4/23/24 09:02, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote: Charlie Gibbs wrote: On 2024-04-22 16:50, Jeffrey Walton wrote: What are the old and new hard drive model numbers and specs? The old drive is a Western Digital WD5000YS (500GB SATA). The new drive is a Western Digital Red, WF40EFPX (4TB SATA). According to my searches, there's no such disk as a WF40EFPX. Are you sure that's what it is? If by any chance it is a WD40EFRX then that is certainly slower than your old drive, so may cause some problems as suggested. I doubt the new drive is slower than the old drive: - https://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/hdd.php?hdd=WDC%20WD5000YS WDC WD5000YS 425 - https://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/hdd.php?hdd=WDC%20WD40EFRX WDC WD40EFRX1,943 David
Re: Subject: Glitchy sound in Steam games after hard drive upgrade
On 4/22/24 21:26, Charlie Gibbs wrote: On 2024-04-22 16:50, Jeffrey Walton wrote: What are the old and new hard drive model numbers and specs? The old drive is a Western Digital WD5000YS (500GB SATA). https://www.newegg.com/western-digital-re2-wd5000ys-500gb/p/N82E16822136032?Item=N82E16822136032 The new drive is a Western Digital Red, WF40EFPX (4TB SATA). https://www.westerndigital.com/products/internal-drives/wd-red-plus-sata-3-5-hdd?sku=WD40EFPX Both drives are spinning rust. I'm upgrading for the increased capacity, i.e. to store more MP3s and videos. Many thanks to all who have replied. When my schedule permits me to continue experimenting, I'm going to try copying /etc from the old drive to the new one. I've already learned how _not_ to do this: Boot from the new drive $ su root # cd / # mv etc etc.ori # rsync -av /mnt/backup/etc . The second line makes the system fall over and makes logins impossible. It took a boot from the rescue CD to undo the damage, which fortunately was easy since the deadly step at least succeeded in backing up /etc. Next time I'll do it while booted from the old drive. Copying an entire /etc directory from one machine to another requires a highly controlled environment and lot of engineering. I have always migrated /etc settings from one OS instance to another OS instance by hand, one service/ configuration file at a time. Can you leave the 500 GB HDD operational and use the 4 TB HDD for data? David
Re: Subject: Glitchy sound in Steam games after hard drive upgrade
Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2024-04-22 16:50, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > > What are the old and new hard drive model numbers and specs? > > The old drive is a Western Digital WD5000YS (500GB SATA). > The new drive is a Western Digital Red, WF40EFPX (4TB SATA). According to my searches, there's no such disk as a WF40EFPX. Are you sure that's what it is? If by any chance it is a WD40EFRX then that is certainly slower than your old drive, so may cause some problems as suggested.
Re: Subject: Glitchy sound in Steam games after hard drive upgrade
On 2024-04-22 16:50, Jeffrey Walton wrote: What are the old and new hard drive model numbers and specs? The old drive is a Western Digital WD5000YS (500GB SATA). The new drive is a Western Digital Red, WF40EFPX (4TB SATA). If the old hard drive was spinning rust, it is acceptable to replace it with a solid state drive. I did it several times in the past. But nowadays a new machine usually (always?) comes with a SSD, so you usually don't need to upgrade for performance reasons. Both drives are spinning rust. I'm upgrading for the increased capacity, i.e. to store more MP3s and videos. Many thanks to all who have replied. When my schedule permits me to continue experimenting, I'm going to try copying /etc from the old drive to the new one. I've already learned how _not_ to do this: Boot from the new drive $ su root # cd / # mv etc etc.ori # rsync -av /mnt/backup/etc . The second line makes the system fall over and makes logins impossible. It took a boot from the rescue CD to undo the damage, which fortunately was easy since the deadly step at least succeeded in backing up /etc. Next time I'll do it while booted from the old drive. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | "Some of you may die, \ /| but it's a sacrifice X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | I'm willing to make." / \ if you read it the right way. |-- Lord Farquaad (Shrek)
Re: Subject: Glitchy sound in Steam games after hard drive upgrade
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 5:03 AM Charlie Gibbs wrote: > I should probably be posting this to the Steam forums, but > most of the denizens there are Windows people so I might be > better off letting you Debian gurus have a go at it first. > > TL;DR: Copying an existing /home into a fresh Debian installation > causes audio in Steam games to glitch - but all other sound is OK. > > Full description: > > I have a machine in the living room that stores MP3s and videos > and serves them to other machines on our network as well as playing > them locally on our TV's big screen. I also play a few Steam games > (e.g. Portal) on it. It's a 2007-vintage machine, but it has 8GB > of RAM and enough CPU power to do the job, and runs the latest > version of Bookworm. > > Recently I decided to upgrade its storage capacity, and replaced > its 500GB hard drive (which was pretty large at the time I bought > it) with a 4TB drive. I did an install from scratch using a > network install CD, then copied my /home partition (using rsync) > from the old drive. Everything works great with one exception: > when I fire up Portal the sound gets glitches about once a second. > This only happens with Steam games; I can play MP3s and videos > with mpv and the sound is perfect, as it is when watching YouTube > videos. If I swap the old drive back in everything is fine. > > Obviously my Steam programs and configuration files are in my > home directory, since the updated system comes up icons and all > without re-installing Steam, and can find everything it needs to > run the games. But perhaps there are a few files somewhere else > (/usr?) containing information critical to audio for Steam. > > Any ideas? > What are the old and new hard drive model numbers and specs? If the old hard drive was spinning rust, it is acceptable to replace it with a solid state drive. I did it several times in the past. But nowadays a new machine usually (always?) comes with a SSD, so you usually don't need to upgrade for performance reasons.
Re: Subject: Glitchy sound in Steam games after hard drive upgrade
> Recently I decided to upgrade its storage capacity, and replaced > its 500GB hard drive (which was pretty large at the time I bought > it) with a 4TB drive. I did an install from scratch using a > network install CD, then copied my /home partition (using rsync) > from the old drive. [...] > (Side question: is this an acceptable way to upgrade a hard drive?) It's acceptable enough that we'll keep talking to you. Personally, assuming the 500GB drive was basically full, I suspect I'd have just done a `dd` copy of the 500GB drive to the new drive, followed by a quick `gparted` run to resize on-the-fly the partitions (in order to get access to the extra 3.5GB). > Everything works great with one exception: > when I fire up Portal the sound gets glitches about once a second. > This only happens with Steam games; I can play MP3s and videos > with mpv and the sound is perfect, as it is when watching YouTube > videos. If I swap the old drive back in everything is fine. I suspect the difference is that the Steam games keep your machine very busy whereas playing a video isn't nearly as demanding, so the machine ends up too busy to refill the sound buffer before its empty. As for why this happens with the new disk and not with the old disk, ... AFAICT it can be either due to the new install such as a difference in the configuration and/or installed software (e.g. one using pulseaudio and the other pipewire), or due to the new hardware, presumably because some operations are slower. Can you boot with both disks connected? If so, can you try to boot off of the 500GB and then use the /home from the 4TB drive (and vice versa)? I think you should be able to do that by booting to "rescue" where (after entering the root password) you'd do something like umount /home mount /dev/the/other/home/partition /home exit I'd tend to think that a modern 4TB drive should be no slower than a 500GB drive, no matter the operation, but maybe the new drive has a particularly small cache, or maybe it's shingled and the Steam game makes a fair amount of writes to the disk which ends up affecting the reads needed to fetch the next chunk of sound? Stefan
Re: Subject: Glitchy sound in Steam games after hard drive upgrade
On 4/21/24 22:33, Charlie Gibbs wrote: I should probably be posting this to the Steam forums, but most of the denizens there are Windows people so I might be better off letting you Debian gurus have a go at it first. TL;DR: Copying an existing /home into a fresh Debian installation causes audio in Steam games to glitch - but all other sound is OK. Full description: I have a machine in the living room that stores MP3s and videos and serves them to other machines on our network as well as playing them locally on our TV's big screen. I also play a few Steam games (e.g. Portal) on it. It's a 2007-vintage machine, but it has 8GB of RAM and enough CPU power to do the job, and runs the latest version of Bookworm. Recently I decided to upgrade its storage capacity, and replaced its 500GB hard drive (which was pretty large at the time I bought it) with a 4TB drive. I did an install from scratch using a network install CD, then copied my /home partition (using rsync) from the old drive. Everything works great with one exception: when I fire up Portal the sound gets glitches about once a second. This only happens with Steam games; I can play MP3s and videos with mpv and the sound is perfect, as it is when watching YouTube videos. If I swap the old drive back in everything is fine. Obviously my Steam programs and configuration files are in my home directory, since the updated system comes up icons and all without re-installing Steam, and can find everything it needs to run the games. But perhaps there are a few files somewhere else (/usr?) containing information critical to audio for Steam. Any ideas? (Side question: is this an acceptable way to upgrade a hard drive?) Copying a home directory from one OS instance to another OS instance sounds risky, especially as I run various OS's. I have several instances of Debian 11, and would not consider them to be identical enough to try it. I only touch the content I create or have learned how to manage. I put my OS on a small SSD and the vast majority of my data on HDD RAID in a file server. As I am the only user on my Debian daily driver, I leave the /home directory on the root file system and keep as little as possible in it. I mount the file server shares under /mnt, and create symlinks in my home directory that point into the mounted file system. I use CVS for project working directories. To migrate to a new home directory, I check in the projects in the old home and check out the project in the new home. I use Firefox and its sync feature. To migrate to a new home, I start Firefox, log in, wait for my settings to sync, and then check all of the settings by hand. I use Thunderbird. To migrate to a new home, I create a tarball of my Thunderbird profile directory on the old machine, expand the tarball on the new machine, and configure Thunderbird to use that profile. I do not attempt to migrate any of the various home directory configuration directories; I let the installer and/or package manager create them, and let the desktop, apps, etc., manage them. David
Re: Subject: Glitchy sound in Steam games after hard drive upgrade
On 2024-04-21, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > Obviously my Steam programs and configuration files are in my > home directory, since the updated system comes up icons and all > without re-installing Steam, and can find everything it needs to > run the games. But perhaps there are a few files somewhere else > (/usr?) containing information critical to audio for Steam. Do you sync /etc ? Configuration is mainly there. > (Side question: is this an acceptable way to upgrade a hard drive?) There is other ways but yes if you also sync /etc :)
Subject: Glitchy sound in Steam games after hard drive upgrade
I should probably be posting this to the Steam forums, but most of the denizens there are Windows people so I might be better off letting you Debian gurus have a go at it first. TL;DR: Copying an existing /home into a fresh Debian installation causes audio in Steam games to glitch - but all other sound is OK. Full description: I have a machine in the living room that stores MP3s and videos and serves them to other machines on our network as well as playing them locally on our TV's big screen. I also play a few Steam games (e.g. Portal) on it. It's a 2007-vintage machine, but it has 8GB of RAM and enough CPU power to do the job, and runs the latest version of Bookworm. Recently I decided to upgrade its storage capacity, and replaced its 500GB hard drive (which was pretty large at the time I bought it) with a 4TB drive. I did an install from scratch using a network install CD, then copied my /home partition (using rsync) from the old drive. Everything works great with one exception: when I fire up Portal the sound gets glitches about once a second. This only happens with Steam games; I can play MP3s and videos with mpv and the sound is perfect, as it is when watching YouTube videos. If I swap the old drive back in everything is fine. Obviously my Steam programs and configuration files are in my home directory, since the updated system comes up icons and all without re-installing Steam, and can find everything it needs to run the games. But perhaps there are a few files somewhere else (/usr?) containing information critical to audio for Steam. Any ideas? (Side question: is this an acceptable way to upgrade a hard drive?) -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Life is perverse. \ /| It can be beautiful - X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | but it won't. / \ if you read it the right way. |-- Lily Tomlin
Re: [Sid] Nouveau: only one monitor after 6.6.15 to 6.7.9 upgrade
On 2024-04-03 21:39 +0200, Greg wrote: > I have two HP Z30i connected to Nvidia GeForce GTX 670. After last > upgrade I'm able to use only one monitor. > > When running linux-image-6.7.9: > > # dmesg | grep nouveau | cut -b 16- > nouveau :01:00.0: vgaarb: deactivate vga console > nouveau :01:00.0: NVIDIA GK104 (0e4090a2) > nouveau :01:00.0: bios: version 80.04.19.00.0f > nouveau :01:00.0: fb: 2048 MiB GDDR5 > nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: VRAM: 2048 MiB > nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: GART: 1048576 MiB > nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: TMDS table version 2.0 > nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: MM: using COPY for buffer copies > snd_hda_intel :01:00.1: bound :01:00.0 (ops > nv50_audio_component_bind_ops [nouveau]) > [drm] Initialized nouveau 1.4.0 20120801 for :01:00.0 on minor 0 > fbcon: nouveaudrmfb (fb0) is primary device > nouveau :01:00.0: vgaarb: VGA decodes changed: > olddecodes=io+mem,decodes=io+mem:owns=io+mem > nouveau :01:00.0: [drm] fb0: nouveaudrmfb frame buffer device > # xrandr > Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 2560 x 1600, maximum 16384 x 16384 > DVI-I-1 connected 2560x1600+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y > axis) 641mm x 400mm >2560x1600 59.97*+ >1920x1200 59.95 >1920x1080 60.00 >1600x1200 60.00 >1680x1050 59.88 >1280x1024 60.02 >1440x900 59.90 >1280x800 59.91 >1280x720 60.00 >1024x768 60.00 >800x600 60.32 >640x480 59.94 >720x400 70.08 > DVI-D-1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) > HDMI-1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) > DP-1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) > > When running linux-image-6.6.15: > > # dmesg | grep nouveau | cut -b 16- > nouveau :01:00.0: vgaarb: deactivate vga console > nouveau :01:00.0: NVIDIA GK104 (0e4090a2) > nouveau :01:00.0: bios: version 80.04.19.00.0f > nouveau :01:00.0: fb: 2048 MiB GDDR5 > nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: VRAM: 2048 MiB > nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: GART: 1048576 MiB > nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: TMDS table version 2.0 > nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB version 4.0 > nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB outp 00: 01000f02 00020030 > nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB outp 01: 02000f00 > nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB outp 02: 08011f82 00020030 > nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB outp 03: 02022f62 00020010 > nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB outp 04: 04833fb6 0f420010 > nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB outp 05: 04033f72 00020010 > nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB conn 00: 1030 > nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB conn 01: 00020131 > nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB conn 02: 00010261 > nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB conn 03: 2346 > nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: MM: using COPY for buffer copies > snd_hda_intel :01:00.1: bound :01:00.0 (ops > nv50_audio_component_bind_ops [nouveau]) > [drm] Initialized nouveau 1.4.0 20120801 for :01:00.0 on minor 0 > nouveau :01:00.0: vgaarb: VGA decodes changed: > olddecodes=io+mem,decodes=io+mem:owns=io+mem > fbcon: nouveaudrmfb (fb0) is primary device > nouveau :01:00.0: [drm] fb0: nouveaudrmfb frame buffer device > # xrandr > Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 5120 x 1600, maximum 16384 x 16384 > DVI-I-1 connected 2560x1600+2560+0 (normal left inverted right x axis > y axis) 641mm x 400mm >2560x1600 59.97*+ >1920x1200 59.95 >1920x1080 60.00 >1600x1200 60.00 >1680x1050 59.88 >1280x1024 60.02 >1440x900 59.90 >1280x800 59.91 >1280x720 60.00 >1024x768 60.00 >800x600 60.32 >640x480 59.94 >720x400 70.08 > DVI-D-1 connected 2560x1600+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y > axis) 641mm x 400mm >2560x1600 59.97*+ >1920x1200 59.95 >1920x1080 60.00 >1600x1200 60.00 >1680x1050 59.88 >1280x1024 60.02 >1440x900 59.90 >1280x800 59.91 >1280x720 60.00 >1024x768 60.00 >800x600 60.32 >640x480 59.94 >720x400 70.08 > HDMI-1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) > DP-1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) > > Any suggestions? File a bug against the kernel: reboot to the 6.7 kernel if it is not currently running, install the reportbug package if it is not installed already, then run $ reportbug linux-image-$(uname -r) Good luck, Sven
[Sid] Nouveau: only one monitor after 6.6.15 to 6.7.9 upgrade
Hi there, I have two HP Z30i connected to Nvidia GeForce GTX 670. After last upgrade I'm able to use only one monitor. When running linux-image-6.7.9: # dmesg | grep nouveau | cut -b 16- nouveau :01:00.0: vgaarb: deactivate vga console nouveau :01:00.0: NVIDIA GK104 (0e4090a2) nouveau :01:00.0: bios: version 80.04.19.00.0f nouveau :01:00.0: fb: 2048 MiB GDDR5 nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: VRAM: 2048 MiB nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: GART: 1048576 MiB nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: TMDS table version 2.0 nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: MM: using COPY for buffer copies snd_hda_intel :01:00.1: bound :01:00.0 (ops nv50_audio_component_bind_ops [nouveau]) [drm] Initialized nouveau 1.4.0 20120801 for :01:00.0 on minor 0 fbcon: nouveaudrmfb (fb0) is primary device nouveau :01:00.0: vgaarb: VGA decodes changed: olddecodes=io+mem,decodes=io+mem:owns=io+mem nouveau :01:00.0: [drm] fb0: nouveaudrmfb frame buffer device # xrandr Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 2560 x 1600, maximum 16384 x 16384 DVI-I-1 connected 2560x1600+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 641mm x 400mm 2560x1600 59.97*+ 1920x1200 59.95 1920x1080 60.00 1600x1200 60.00 1680x1050 59.88 1280x1024 60.02 1440x900 59.90 1280x800 59.91 1280x720 60.00 1024x768 60.00 800x600 60.32 640x480 59.94 720x400 70.08 DVI-D-1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) HDMI-1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) DP-1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) When running linux-image-6.6.15: # dmesg | grep nouveau | cut -b 16- nouveau :01:00.0: vgaarb: deactivate vga console nouveau :01:00.0: NVIDIA GK104 (0e4090a2) nouveau :01:00.0: bios: version 80.04.19.00.0f nouveau :01:00.0: fb: 2048 MiB GDDR5 nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: VRAM: 2048 MiB nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: GART: 1048576 MiB nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: TMDS table version 2.0 nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB version 4.0 nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB outp 00: 01000f02 00020030 nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB outp 01: 02000f00 nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB outp 02: 08011f82 00020030 nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB outp 03: 02022f62 00020010 nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB outp 04: 04833fb6 0f420010 nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB outp 05: 04033f72 00020010 nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB conn 00: 1030 nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB conn 01: 00020131 nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB conn 02: 00010261 nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB conn 03: 2346 nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: MM: using COPY for buffer copies snd_hda_intel :01:00.1: bound :01:00.0 (ops nv50_audio_component_bind_ops [nouveau]) [drm] Initialized nouveau 1.4.0 20120801 for :01:00.0 on minor 0 nouveau :01:00.0: vgaarb: VGA decodes changed: olddecodes=io+mem,decodes=io+mem:owns=io+mem fbcon: nouveaudrmfb (fb0) is primary device nouveau :01:00.0: [drm] fb0: nouveaudrmfb frame buffer device # xrandr Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 5120 x 1600, maximum 16384 x 16384 DVI-I-1 connected 2560x1600+2560+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 641mm x 400mm 2560x1600 59.97*+ 1920x1200 59.95 1920x1080 60.00 1600x1200 60.00 1680x1050 59.88 1280x1024 60.02 1440x900 59.90 1280x800 59.91 1280x720 60.00 1024x768 60.00 800x600 60.32 640x480 59.94 720x400 70.08 DVI-D-1 connected 2560x1600+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 641mm x 400mm 2560x1600 59.97*+ 1920x1200 59.95 1920x1080 60.00 1600x1200 60.00 1680x1050 59.88 1280x1024 60.02 1440x900 59.90 1280x800 59.91 1280x720 60.00 1024x768 60.00 800x600 60.32 640x480 59.94 720x400 70.08 HDMI-1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) DP-1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) Any suggestions? Greg
RE: How to upgrade the GLIBCXX and GLIBC to the specific version
Hi, Jeff Thanks for your reply. I resolved this issue by upgrading the Raspbian OS from Bullseye to Bookworm. Best Regards Diego -Original Message- From: Jeffrey Walton Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 9:27 PM To: Diego Luo （罗国雄） Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: How to upgrade the GLIBCXX and GLIBC to the specific version Caution: This email originated outside of Semtech. On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 5:52 AM Diego Luo （罗国雄） wrote: > > Would you pls help give tips about how to upgrade the GLIBCXX and GLIBC to > the specific version (GLIBCXX_3.4.29, GLIBC_2.34) on Debian? > > I am using the Raspberry Pi 4B with the Raspbian OS “Linux raspberrypi > 5.15.61-v8+ #1579 SMP PREEMPT Fri Aug 26 11:16:44 BST 2022 aarch64 > GNU/Linux”, which is Debian based OS. > > When running a SW I met the problem missing the required versions of GLIBCXX > and GLIBC, with the details below. > > root@raspberrypi:/home/bitmap_overlap/linux-aarch64# > ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer > > ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer: /lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6: > version `GLIBCXX_3.4.29' not found (required by > ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer) > > ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer: /lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version > `GLIBC_2.32' not found (required by ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer) > > ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer: /lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version > `GLIBC_2.33' not found (required by ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer) > > ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer: /lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version > `GLIBC_2.34' not found (required by ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer) > > root@raspberrypi:/home/bitmap_overlap/linux-aarch64# Another option is to rebuild blueriver_bitmap_streamer. Before the build, rip out that useless symbol versioning. All that symbol versioning does is to cause a DoS and frustrate users. You can find the ASM directives to rip out the versioning by grepping for '.symver'. It will be in an ASM block. Jeff To view our privacy policy, including the types of personal information we collect, process and share, and the rights and options you have in this respect, see www.semtech.com/legal.
Re: How to upgrade the GLIBCXX and GLIBC to the specific version
Gremlin wrote: The new OS called Raspberry Pi OS is a new animal. The foundation used raspian and the the Raspberry Pi OS is the foundations, developed by the foundation. Yet it is still based on Debian, according to their changelog https://downloads.raspberrypi.com/raspios_arm64/release_notes.txt | 2023-10-10: | * Based on Debian bookworm release
Re: How to upgrade the GLIBCXX and GLIBC to the specific version
Gremlin wrote: > On 2/27/24 16:08, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote: > > Gremlin wrote: > > > >> The provider is raspberry foundation and Raspian has been > >> dis-continued. > Nope that is just wrong. > > https://www.raspbian.org/ [snip] > Note: Raspbian is not affiliated with the Raspberry Pi Foundation.
Re: How to upgrade the GLIBCXX and GLIBC to the specific version
On 2/27/24 16:21, Gremlin wrote: On 2/27/24 16:08, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote: Gremlin wrote: The provider is raspberry foundation and Raspian has been dis-continued. There is such a thing as the Raspberry Pi Foundation but they are an educational charity. Pis are supplied by Raspberry Pi Ltd. Raspbian has NOT been discontinued, it has simply been renamed Raspberry Pi OS. I don't know who releases it, though it is released from teh Ltd company website rather than the Foundation. Perhaps somebody else knows more detail. Nope that is just wrong. https://www.raspbian.org/ Welcome to Raspbian Raspbian is a free operating system based on Debian optimized for the Raspberry Pi hardware. An operating system is the set of basic programs and utilities that make your Raspberry Pi run. However, Raspbian provides more than a pure OS: it comes with over 35,000 packages, pre-compiled software bundled in a nice format for easy installation on your Raspberry Pi. The initial build of over 35,000 Raspbian packages, optimized for best performance on the Raspberry Pi, was completed in June of 2012. However, Raspbian is still under active development with an emphasis on improving the stability and performance of as many Debian packages as possible. Note: Raspbian is not affiliated with the Raspberry Pi Foundation. Raspbian was created by a small, dedicated team of developers that are fans of the Raspberry Pi hardware, the educational goals of the Raspberry Pi Foundation and, of course, the Debian Project. Why are you trying to tell someone that has used raspberry pi since the original pi came out things that are just not true. I also build custom OS for the raspberry pi platform and I am well versed with them. I have approx a dozen of them from rpi to rpi 5 I have used them for servers on the network including the original pi. Yes I am aware of theis in the foundation page: Your Raspberry Pi needs an operating system to work. This is it. Raspberry Pi OS (previously called Raspbian) is our official supported operating system. The new OS called Raspberry Pi OS is a new animal. The foundation used raspian and the the Raspberry Pi OS is the foundations, developed by the foundation. Just one huge problem with all this, the NIH syndrome rules supreme as far as your forum is concerned, I asked about a realtime kernel 3 times so I could run linuxcnc on an rpi3b many years ago. Some body took umbrage and I have been blackholed from posting to the forum since, about 6 or 7 years ago. But I managed to get a realtime 4.19 built and ran it for quite sometime, 6 years, 2 on the rpi3b, now 4 years on a 4b. After I figured out how to install it. Uptimes in years from my method. The forum supports music video to the near exclusion of a heck of a lot of other stuff the pi can do. So when I got into 3d printers, it was on bananapi-m5's running armbian. Support by Igor and friends has been so good I throw a $20 bill in the armbian kitty every month. TANSTAAFL folks. Natures only 100% true law. Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET. -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis
Re: How to upgrade the GLIBCXX and GLIBC to the specific version
On 2/27/24 16:08, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote: Gremlin wrote: The provider is raspberry foundation and Raspian has been dis-continued. There is such a thing as the Raspberry Pi Foundation but they are an educational charity. Pis are supplied by Raspberry Pi Ltd. Raspbian has NOT been discontinued, it has simply been renamed Raspberry Pi OS. I don't know who releases it, though it is released from teh Ltd company website rather than the Foundation. Perhaps somebody else knows more detail. Nope that is just wrong. https://www.raspbian.org/ Welcome to Raspbian Raspbian is a free operating system based on Debian optimized for the Raspberry Pi hardware. An operating system is the set of basic programs and utilities that make your Raspberry Pi run. However, Raspbian provides more than a pure OS: it comes with over 35,000 packages, pre-compiled software bundled in a nice format for easy installation on your Raspberry Pi. The initial build of over 35,000 Raspbian packages, optimized for best performance on the Raspberry Pi, was completed in June of 2012. However, Raspbian is still under active development with an emphasis on improving the stability and performance of as many Debian packages as possible. Note: Raspbian is not affiliated with the Raspberry Pi Foundation. Raspbian was created by a small, dedicated team of developers that are fans of the Raspberry Pi hardware, the educational goals of the Raspberry Pi Foundation and, of course, the Debian Project. Why are you trying to tell someone that has used raspberry pi since the original pi came out things that are just not true. I also build custom OS for the raspberry pi platform and I am well versed with them. I have approx a dozen of them from rpi to rpi 5 I have used them for servers on the network including the original pi. Yes I am aware of theis in the foundation page: Your Raspberry Pi needs an operating system to work. This is it. Raspberry Pi OS (previously called Raspbian) is our official supported operating system. The new OS called Raspberry Pi OS is a new animal. The foundation used raspian and the the Raspberry Pi OS is the foundations, developed by the foundation. -- Hindi madali ang maging ako
Re: How to upgrade the GLIBCXX and GLIBC to the specific version
Gremlin wrote: > The provider is raspberry foundation and Raspian has been > dis-continued. There is such a thing as the Raspberry Pi Foundation but they are an educational charity. Pis are supplied by Raspberry Pi Ltd. Raspbian has NOT been discontinued, it has simply been renamed Raspberry Pi OS. I don't know who releases it, though it is released from teh Ltd company website rather than the Foundation. Perhaps somebody else knows more detail.
Re: How to upgrade the GLIBCXX and GLIBC to the specific version
On 2/27/24 10:08, Jeffrey Walton wrote: Unable to Process Request We couldn't access the content delivery. This content has been deleted, doesn't exist, or can't be previewed. Gonna be hard to do that OP might then take a look at editing the elf file directly. `objdump --remove-section .symver blueriver_bitmap_streamer` should do the trick. Why? The OP wants to run his software. Surely you have a better question than "Why," but I don't know what it is. Jeff Nope it is exactly WHY? Why not install the latest OS for raspberry pi and you won't have an issue. Get it? -- Hindi madali ang maging ako
Re: How to upgrade the GLIBCXX and GLIBC to the specific version
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 9:28 AM Gremlin wrote: > > On 2/27/24 09:23, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 8:34 AM Gremlin > > wrote: > >> [...] > >>> Another option is to rebuild blueriver_bitmap_streamer. Before the > >>> build, rip out that useless symbol versioning. All that symbol > >>> versioning does is to cause a DoS and frustrate users. > >>> > >>> You can find the ASM directives to rip out the versioning by grepping > >>> for '.symver'. It will be in an ASM block. > >> > >> https://info.semtech.com/blueriver-av-manager > >> > >> The source: > >> > >> https://semtech.my.salesforce.com/sfc/p/#E000JelG/a/RQ01m7Hx/ptDTNUqlZvD_8F_SbhjtoHaX9jOZ_fKxuauW0cZp5ag?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Finfo.semtech.com%2F > >> > >> Unable to Process Request > >> We couldn't access the content delivery. > >> > >> This content has been deleted, doesn't exist, or can't be previewed. > >> > >> Gonna be hard to do that > > > > OP might then take a look at editing the elf file directly. `objdump > > --remove-section .symver blueriver_bitmap_streamer` should do the > > trick. > > Why? The OP wants to run his software. Surely you have a better question than "Why," but I don't know what it is. Jeff
Re: How to upgrade the GLIBCXX and GLIBC to the specific version
On 2/27/24 09:23, Jeffrey Walton wrote: On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 8:34 AM Gremlin wrote: On 2/27/24 08:27, Jeffrey Walton wrote: On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 5:52 AM Diego Luo （罗国雄） wrote: Would you pls help give tips about how to upgrade the GLIBCXX and GLIBC to the specific version (GLIBCXX_3.4.29, GLIBC_2.34) on Debian? I am using the Raspberry Pi 4B with the Raspbian OS “Linux raspberrypi 5.15.61-v8+ #1579 SMP PREEMPT Fri Aug 26 11:16:44 BST 2022 aarch64 GNU/Linux”, which is Debian based OS. When running a SW I met the problem missing the required versions of GLIBCXX and GLIBC, with the details below. root@raspberrypi:/home/bitmap_overlap/linux-aarch64# ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer: /lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.29' not found (required by ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer) ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer: /lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.32' not found (required by ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer) ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer: /lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.33' not found (required by ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer) ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer: /lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.34' not found (required by ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer) root@raspberrypi:/home/bitmap_overlap/linux-aarch64# Another option is to rebuild blueriver_bitmap_streamer. Before the build, rip out that useless symbol versioning. All that symbol versioning does is to cause a DoS and frustrate users. You can find the ASM directives to rip out the versioning by grepping for '.symver'. It will be in an ASM block. https://info.semtech.com/blueriver-av-manager The source: https://semtech.my.salesforce.com/sfc/p/#E000JelG/a/RQ01m7Hx/ptDTNUqlZvD_8F_SbhjtoHaX9jOZ_fKxuauW0cZp5ag?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Finfo.semtech.com%2F Unable to Process Request We couldn't access the content delivery. This content has been deleted, doesn't exist, or can't be previewed. Gonna be hard to do that OP might then take a look at editing the elf file directly. `objdump --remove-section .symver blueriver_bitmap_streamer` should do the trick. Jeff Why? Install a supported up to date OS and it should just work. Raspian is an unsupported OS and has zero future. -- Hindi madali ang maging ako
Re: How to upgrade the GLIBCXX and GLIBC to the specific version
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 8:34 AM Gremlin wrote: > > On 2/27/24 08:27, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 5:52 AM Diego Luo （罗国雄） wrote: > >> > >> Would you pls help give tips about how to upgrade the GLIBCXX and GLIBC to > >> the specific version (GLIBCXX_3.4.29, GLIBC_2.34) on Debian? > >> > >> I am using the Raspberry Pi 4B with the Raspbian OS “Linux raspberrypi > >> 5.15.61-v8+ #1579 SMP PREEMPT Fri Aug 26 11:16:44 BST 2022 aarch64 > >> GNU/Linux”, which is Debian based OS. > >> > >> When running a SW I met the problem missing the required versions of > >> GLIBCXX and GLIBC, with the details below. > >> > >> root@raspberrypi:/home/bitmap_overlap/linux-aarch64# > >> ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer > >> > >> ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer: /lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6: > >> version `GLIBCXX_3.4.29' not found (required by > >> ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer) > >> > >> ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer: /lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version > >> `GLIBC_2.32' not found (required by ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer) > >> > >> ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer: /lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version > >> `GLIBC_2.33' not found (required by ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer) > >> > >> ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer: /lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version > >> `GLIBC_2.34' not found (required by ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer) > >> > >> root@raspberrypi:/home/bitmap_overlap/linux-aarch64# > > > > Another option is to rebuild blueriver_bitmap_streamer. Before the > > build, rip out that useless symbol versioning. All that symbol > > versioning does is to cause a DoS and frustrate users. > > > > You can find the ASM directives to rip out the versioning by grepping > > for '.symver'. It will be in an ASM block. > > https://info.semtech.com/blueriver-av-manager > > The source: > > https://semtech.my.salesforce.com/sfc/p/#E000JelG/a/RQ01m7Hx/ptDTNUqlZvD_8F_SbhjtoHaX9jOZ_fKxuauW0cZp5ag?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Finfo.semtech.com%2F > > Unable to Process Request > We couldn't access the content delivery. > > This content has been deleted, doesn't exist, or can't be previewed. > > Gonna be hard to do that OP might then take a look at editing the elf file directly. `objdump --remove-section .symver blueriver_bitmap_streamer` should do the trick. Jeff
ARMv7 problematic? (was: How to upgrade the GLIBCXX and GLIBC to the specific version)
> He is most likely using armv7 and that comes with its own issues, ie > cpu type and floating point (hard/soft, neon and simd). aarch64 much > easier to build on. I'm using Debian armhf here on various machines (most of them with ARMv7 CPUs but some one of them with an ARMv8 CPU (and kernel)). I haven't encountered any particular problem (both in terms of using and installing Debian and in terms of "manually" building software from source) that seems related to ARMv7 vs ARMv8. Stefan
Re: How to upgrade the GLIBCXX and GLIBC to the specific version
On 2/27/24 08:27, Jeffrey Walton wrote: On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 5:52 AM Diego Luo （罗国雄） wrote: Would you pls help give tips about how to upgrade the GLIBCXX and GLIBC to the specific version (GLIBCXX_3.4.29, GLIBC_2.34) on Debian? I am using the Raspberry Pi 4B with the Raspbian OS “Linux raspberrypi 5.15.61-v8+ #1579 SMP PREEMPT Fri Aug 26 11:16:44 BST 2022 aarch64 GNU/Linux”, which is Debian based OS. When running a SW I met the problem missing the required versions of GLIBCXX and GLIBC, with the details below. root@raspberrypi:/home/bitmap_overlap/linux-aarch64# ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer: /lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.29' not found (required by ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer) ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer: /lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.32' not found (required by ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer) ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer: /lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.33' not found (required by ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer) ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer: /lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.34' not found (required by ./blueriver_bitmap_streamer) root@raspberrypi:/home/bitmap_overlap/linux-aarch64# Another option is to rebuild blueriver_bitmap_streamer. Before the build, rip out that useless symbol versioning. All that symbol versioning does is to cause a DoS and frustrate users. You can find the ASM directives to rip out the versioning by grepping for '.symver'. It will be in an ASM block. Jeff https://info.semtech.com/blueriver-av-manager The source: https://semtech.my.salesforce.com/sfc/p/#E000JelG/a/RQ01m7Hx/ptDTNUqlZvD_8F_SbhjtoHaX9jOZ_fKxuauW0cZp5ag?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Finfo.semtech.com%2F Unable to Process Request We couldn't access the content delivery. This content has been deleted, doesn't exist, or can't be previewed. Gonna be hard to do that -- Hindi madali ang maging ako
